:patriot: A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.

Sad story but very real indeed.


:duel:

I am happy you were arrested. I am happy you spent time in jail. I am happy your life has been ruined by your attitude toward the support of your children. I am saddened that your kids are having so many difficulties in life that I directly attribute to the pos you are.

A significant point of the injustuce in the traffic laws is that when a speeder is brought to court for speeding, then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they speed or not.

if the Speeder was proved to have not been speeding, then the speeder becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the speeder was speeding, then the speeder is GUILTY.

A significant point of the injustice of the vehicle code laws is that when a scofflaw is brought to court for illegally operating a vehicle tagged as Historic, then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did the illegally operate that vehicle or not.

If the Illegal operator was proven not to have been in violation, they are NOT GUILTY, and if the illegal operator was operating illegally, then the illegal operator is GUILTY.


This works on many levels.

ban all laws.

A significant point of the injustuce in the traffic laws is that when a speeder is brought to court for speeding, then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they speed or not.

if the Speeder was proved to have not been speeding, then the speeder becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the speeder was speeding, then the speeder is GUILTY.
:popcorn: It is not the same at all.

In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.

A person speeding is in fact physically doing a crime.

And in violent crimes like murder than the accused "Defendant" can argue that it was done in self defense, or the death was an accident, or some one else killed the person, or temporary insanity, and other forms of legal defense in a Court of law.

It is a huge big difference in c/s cases, and an unjust difference.


:drummer:

:popcorn: It is not the same at all.

In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.

A person speeding is in fact physically doing a crime.

And in violent crimes like murder than the accused "Defendant" can argue that it was done in self defense, or the death was an accident, or some one else killed the person, or temporary insanity, and other forms of legal defense in a Court of law.

It is a huge big difference in c/s cases, and an unjust difference.


:drummer:
I am happy you were arrested. I am happy you spent time in jail. I am happy your life has been ruined by your attitude toward the support of your children. I am saddened that your kids are having so many difficulties in life that I directly attribute to the pos you are.

:patriot: A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.

Sad story but very real indeed.


:duel:


What kind of DRUGS did you take in your youth? Your line of thinking is obviously a direct result of mind alternating drugs. We need to know so they can be super stressed as a big NO NO to the youth of today. Thanks for being a POSTER ADULT!!

:patriot: A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
If they failed to pay they are guilty.

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
You can explain anything you want, you are offered a public defender or you can get a lawyer. You can explain to the judge if you are crippled or have been in the hospital etc... You can also file for a modification

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
I'ts not about taking the deadbeats money. It's about SUPPORTING THE CHILD... hence the words CHILD SUPPORT

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
Boohoo you gotta sell your possessions? SO WHAT. You created a child you take care of the child. No matter what it takes you should make sure your kid is taken care of. Their is no excuse for a parent to be a deadbeat. The custodial parent has no option to support their kid do they? Someone has to house, feed, clothe the child.
Sad story but very real indeed.
What is a sad story is a pathetic loser deadbeat parent who choses not to support the children they created. Sorry but their are jobs out there.. You can flip burgers or wrap tacos.. whatever it takes.

:duel:

:bawl: You gotta pay child support

JPC,
You post all of these threads about the unjustice that you have been dealt. So what if the mother of your kids just dropped them off at your place, gave them a big hug and hopped on a plane to never never land. Would you still whine an cry about your injustice then? I think you all would be the first in line to the STS bus to L-town to file for whatever you could get from Joe and jane taxpayer. Do the world a favor and shut up or get a JOB!!!

:patriot: A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.

Sad story but very real indeed.


:duel:

Sorry to burst your bubble there JP... but all the above is false.

It is a question of contempt of court- did the non-custodial parent have the ability or means to pay the support and fail to pay? in which case they are in contempt of their court order.

you really should stop spewing out all this false information, you have no clue what policy is involved in child support in the year 2009.

Do some research and see what is really going on.....

If a parent can't pay because they have no job they are sent to A jobs program.... where for FREE,
they get help preparing a resume,
help learning computer skills,
help getting bonded- if they have employment barriers, help with getting a GED
help with job searches
bus passes to get to these classes
help if they are not working because they can't afford a RX
use of the internet
Help learning how to interview for a job

You are a deadbeat if you don't pay your child support. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Did you eat a good meal last night? Do you even care if your children ate? When you decided to have children you took on the resposibility of being a parent. Sorry to break it to you bud but that means supporting them financially. Perhaps if you didn't want to make sacrafices for them you should have kept it in your pants.

:bawl: You gotta pay child support

:bawl: I gotta pay child support.

Seriously, what is so hard about paying child support? It's your responsibility as a father. Dur... :dork:

Of course all of you realize JPC has mental problems and you are wasting your time. Every post in reply to his lunacy is like throwing a starving dog a treat. (No insult intended to starving dogs)

He is a self centered leech on society. He will never change his stance that he is a victim.

Of course all of you realize JPC has mental problems and you are wasting your time. Every post in reply to his lunacy is like throwing a starving dog a treat. (No insult intended to starving dogs)

He is a self centered leech on society. He will never change his stance that he is a victim.

Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?

:patriot: A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.

Sad story but very real indeed.


:duel:

My daddy would so whip your ass.........

Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?

I am sure somewhere in the hundreds of posts arguing with him it has been asked. Go ahead though, I am sure his answers will be hilarious.

I suspect he had no choice . what judge is going to give custody to a delusional no load?

I am sure somewhere in the hundreds of posts arguing with him it has been asked. Go ahead though, I am sure his answers will be hilarious.

I suspect he had no choice . what judge is going to give custody to a delusional no load?

I'm not going to search for it. Let's just see if he replies to it here.

I'm not going to search for it. Let's just see if he replies to it here.

It was probably back when he said kids have small stomachs and don't need that much to eat and they are small so they can sleep on a couch.

It was probably back when he said kids have small stomachs and don't need that much to eat and they are small so they can sleep on a couch.

Somewhere around where he says teen pregnancy is fine and babies are a blessing to anyone. Bars should be open 24/7 and there should be 10 lottery drawings a night.

So basically, the people that would vote for him are drunks and deadbeat dads.

It was probably back when he said kids have small stomachs and don't need that much to eat and they are small so they can sleep on a couch.

Probably.

:bawl: I gotta pay child support.

Seriously, what is so hard about paying child support? It's your responsibility as a father. Dur... :dork:

Spend a day at court when they are hearing child support cases... you will hear how hard it is for hundreds of deadbeat parents... both mothers and fathers. It's' really pathetic. You will see deadbeats who owe anywhere from a couple hundred to over a 100K. You will also see stupid women standing there with their deadbeat boyfriends/husbands. I guess they are proud to be standing by their man. I just think how stupid they are. Especially when they are pregnant.. umm hello the deadbeat doesn't support the kid or kids he already has. Do you think he will support yours? :duh:

Ahhh, bitterness is an ugly old shrew. Oh yeah, she can be very tempting at first with that come hither smile and promises of immediate gratification and relief from the frustration and impotence. But, you'd best not succumb to her wiles. For, once you let her in, she'll take over. She'll suck up all the air, and suffocate everything that might have brought some real fulfillment to your life. And you want to talk about jealous? She's one jealous ass ##### - she has to be the center of your world - she won't stand for you having anything else in it, least of all, happiness.

Ahhh, bitterness is an ugly old shrew. Oh yeah, she can be very tempting at first with that come hither smile and promises of immediate gratification and relief from the frustration and impotence. But, you'd best not succumb to her wiles. For, once you let her in, she'll take over. She'll suck up all the air, and suffocate everything that might have brought some real fulfillment to your life. And you want to talk about jealous? She's one jealous ass ##### - she has to be the center of your world - she won't stand for you having anything else in it, least of all, happiness.
Post of the day?:buddies:

Ahhh, bitterness is an ugly old shrew. Oh yeah, she can be very tempting at first with that come hither smile and promises of immediate gratification and relief from the frustration and impotence. But, you'd best not succumb to her wiles. For, once you let her in, she'll take over. She'll suck up all the air, and suffocate everything that might have brought some real fulfillment to your life. And you want to talk about jealous? She's one jealous ass ##### - she has to be the center of your world - she won't stand for you having anything else in it, least of all, happiness.

Are talking about bitterness, or my ex-wife? :confused:

Of course all of you realize JPC has mental problems and you are wasting your time. Every post in reply to his lunacy is like throwing a starving dog a treat. (No insult intended to starving dogs)

He is a self centered leech on society. He will never change his stance that he is a victim.

Kinda like my ex wife that I pay child support to. :killingme

Are talking about bitterness, or my ex-wife? :confused:

Could be bitterness or for all ex wives as when you read LM post it changes from "both mothers and fathers" to he, he, he, he the more she writes

JPC,
You post all of these threads about the unjustice that you have been dealt. So what if the mother of your kids just dropped them off at your place, gave them a big hug and hopped on a plane to never never land. Would you still whine an cry about your injustice then? I think you all would be the first in line to the STS bus to L-town to file for whatever you could get from Joe and jane taxpayer. Do the world a favor and shut up or get a JOB!!!
:popcorn: I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.

And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.

I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.

It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.


:duel:

:popcorn: I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.

And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.

I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.

It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.


:duel:
And being financially supported by your biological parent is not a right?

Being on welfare is sinful stealing of the public loot when the separated parent has the money or the wherewithal to make the money but refuses.

If they failed to pay they are guilty.

:popcorn: No, in reality the parents are just poor and one can not truly be guilty of any crime just based on being poor - and thereby too poor to pay the Child Support demands.

And it cost over $20,000. per year for each prisoner in jail, and for that amount we could give each of the parents a full time 40 hour week job at the minimum wage and have money left over. And if we did that then the Child Support could be deducted from the new job and income taxes paid too and each time it would be one less person in jail.

Note: I do not propose giving the parents such jobs but the irony still stands in that equation.

Instead we have Child Support laws that pillage and plunder the separated parents until the parents are dead-broke and then the law put the parents into prison for 3 or 5 years accordingly and it is an ignorant way to run a gov. And only ONLY poor parents go to jail.



You can explain anything you want, you are offered a public defender or you can get a lawyer. You can explain to the judge if you are crippled or have been in the hospital etc... You can also file for a modification
:howdy: Sure a parent can do that after they plead "GUILTY" to not paying the Child Support, which means the parents are guilty first and then the parents must try to prove their true innocence AFTER pleading guilty.

It is unAmerican and maybe some day it will be declared as unConstitutional as other challenges, link one HERE (http://secondwivescafe.com/articles/supportreform.shtml).



I'ts not about taking the deadbeats money. It's about SUPPORTING THE CHILD... hence the words CHILD SUPPORT
:whistle: But that is just not real, and I know many people believe it is true that Child Support is to support the children but it is NOT.

Child Support is about "enforcing their right to support from both of their parents" (http://www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/mission.htm) which only means "Parenting Police". It talks hypocritically about "children" but it is only about controlling the parents.



Boohoo you gotta sell your possessions? SO WHAT. You created a child you take care of the child. No matter what it takes you should make sure your kid is taken care of. Their is no excuse for a parent to be a deadbeat. The custodial parent has no option to support their kid do they? Someone has to house, feed, clothe the child.
:howdy: The children all have everything they need and if any child lacks anything needed then it is ONLY because of the neglect or abuse by the custodial and NOT because of Child Support being paid or not paid.

And the custodial does have plenty of easy options to get anything the child(ren) needs to overflowing without getting any Child Support at all.

And the truest proof of all is that the poorest of poor families on Welfare have their Child Support payments confiscated by the State gov and that c/s payment is put into the State treasury - why? because the poorest of children already have everything they need to overflowing.



What is a sad story is a pathetic loser deadbeat parent who choses not to support the children they created. Sorry but their are jobs out there.. You can flip burgers or wrap tacos.. whatever it takes.

:popcorn: No parent really choses to not support their own children as that is just slander and not true.

But it is right and proper for any parent to chose not to pay a thief even when the thief is a gov Child Support collection.



:bawl: You gotta pay child support
:getdown: There is a better option now, in that voting JP as Governor and then say "bye-bye" to the thieving Child Support system.

There are always options and better choices when one investigates.



:drummer:

Sorry to burst your bubble there JP... but all the above is false.

It is a question of contempt of court- did the non-custodial parent have the ability or means to pay the support and fail to pay? in which case they are in contempt of their court order.

you really should stop spewing out all this false information, you have no clue what policy is involved in child support in the year 2009.

Do some research and see what is really going on.....

If a parent can't pay because they have no job they are sent to A jobs program.... where for FREE,
they get help preparing a resume,
help learning computer skills,
help getting bonded- if they have employment barriers, help with getting a GED
help with job searches
bus passes to get to these classes
help if they are not working because they can't afford a RX
use of the internet
Help learning how to interview for a job
:popcorn: No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court and I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.

And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters and not by a real Judge, and I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, and if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.

Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.

Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.



:duel:

Could be bitterness or for all ex wives as when you read LM post it changes from "both mothers and fathers" to he, he, he, he the more she writes

I would say the majority is men. If you spent just one day in CS court you would see 1-2 women and the rest are men. Which is probably why I wrote more of the "he".

Their are deadbeat mothers AND fathers. And I would also say their are custodial parents who are deadbeats.

:popcorn: I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.

And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.

I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.

It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.


:duel:

Live off of it? Are you serious? How much child support were you ordered to pay?

Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?
:whistle: At that time I did not know about the realities involved in divorce or custody or about Child Support procedures.

At the time I thought my ex-wife and our extended families were the best environment to leave my son in, and I never ever even considered taking custody myself.

And even now today as I do know the ugly realities of the Child Support system then I surely would not wish that to be turned against my ex-wife as I do not like it being turned on anyone even when I do not know the families.

And I had no idea that my son would be so immature without his father raising him or else I would never had left him as I did. That was an awful mistake of mine and I did blow it for my son and for myself in that.


:duel:

:popcorn: No, in reality the parents are just poor and one can not truly be guilty of any crime just based on being poor - and thereby too poor to pay the Child Support demands.

And it cost over $20,000. per year for each prisoner in jail, and for that amount we could give each of the parents a full time 40 hour week job at the minimum wage and have money left over. And if we did that then the Child Support could be deducted from the new job and income taxes paid too and each time it would be one less person in jail.

Note: I do not propose giving the parents such jobs but the irony still stands in that equation.

Instead we have Child Support laws that pillage and plunder the separated parents until the parents are dead-broke and then the law put the parents into prison for 3 or 5 years accordingly and it is an ignorant way to run a gov. And only ONLY poor parents go to jail.


:howdy: Sure a parent can do that after they plead "GUILTY" to not paying the Child Support, which means the parents are guilty first and then the parents must try to prove their true innocence AFTER pleading guilty.

It is unAmerican and maybe some day it will be declared as unConstitutional as other challenges, link one HERE (http://secondwivescafe.com/articles/supportreform.shtml).


:whistle: But that is just not real, and I know many people believe it is true that Child Support is to support the children but it is NOT.

Child Support is about "enforcing their right to support from both of their parents" (http://www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/mission.htm) which only means "Parenting Police". It talks hypocritically about "children" but it is only about controlling the parents.


:howdy: The children all have everything they need and if any child lacks anything needed then it is ONLY because of the neglect or abuse by the custodial and NOT because of Child Support being paid or not paid.

And the custodial does have plenty of easy options to get anything the child(ren) needs to overflowing without getting any Child Support at all.

And the truest proof of all is that the poorest of poor families on Welfare have their Child Support payments confiscated by the State gov and that c/s payment is put into the State treasury - why? because the poorest of children already have everything they need to overflowing.


:popcorn: No parent really choses to not support their own children as that is just slander and not true.

But it is right and proper for any parent to chose not to pay a thief even when the thief is a gov Child Support collection.


:getdown: There is a better option now, in that voting JP as Governor and then say "bye-bye" to the thieving Child Support system.

There are always options and better choices when one investigates.



:drummer:

You are insane :lol:

So you are saying that if a child doesn't have everything they need they are abused/neglected by the custodial parent? But the non custodial parent should just continue to choose to be poor?

:popcorn: No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court and I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.

And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters and not by a real Judge, and I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, and if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.

Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.

Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.



:duel:

Nope you are offered all of those things BEFORE a long prison sentence. The long prison sentence is for those who continue to play the system and use it. You get many chances to find a job and get help finding that job. Sounds like you would do anything to avoid supporting the child you created.

And being financially supported by your biological parent is not a right?
:popcorn: What you are saying is that the child has a "right" to their parents' money and it is just not true.

In the not-so-old-days we use to call that circumstance as children under a "marriage" but not by today's laws.

In real-life if a parent is poor than the children are poor in accordance, and if the parents are rich then the children reap the benefits as the parents bestow them onto their own children.

The biggest billionaire Bill Gates has said that he is not going to give his children his big money as he is only giving his kids a pittance of the loot and he can do that because the children do NOT have any "right" to the parents' money.

And if a parent is poor or dead-broke then it is absurd to put the parents in jail like criminals to pay their children more than what their parents have. And included in that equation is that all the children already have every thing they need to overflowing.

So your claim sounds right but it is just belligerent.



:drummer:

So you are saying that if a child doesn't have everything they need they are abused/neglected by the custodial parent?
:popcorn: The custodials are usually employed or have some means of supporting them selves and if they do not then it is absurd to give child custody to a person or parent that is not capable to actually providing the custody.

That is what "custody" means is to provide everything the child needs.

And if the custodial is poor or underemployed or whatever then there are many resources including extended family and local Churches and gov Public Assistance, so there is no reason that any child does without any real need except for the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the custodial.

And when the custodial sees it as "unfair" then they have no business being given legal custody at all. I say give the custody to the parent with the money instead of taking the money and giving it to the custodial that fails to provide the custody.



But the non custodial parent should just continue to choose to be poor?
:popcorn: I do not accept the nonsense that any person (parent or otherwise) chooses to be poor.

But here in the USA the citizens are said to have freedom and if one wants to live a simple life or live wild then that is a normal human right and a person's free choice, and if poor parents have children then the children only get the life style that their poor parents give them.

It seems very inhuman to me to say that poor people can not have children unless they can afford a certain level of Child Support.


:duel:

:popcorn: The custodials are usually employed or have some means of supporting them selves and if they do not then it is absurd to give child custody to a person or parent that is not capable to actually providing the custody.

That is what "custody" means is to provide everything the child needs.

And if the custodial is poor or underemployed or whatever then there are many resources including extended family and local Churches and gov Public Assistance, so there is no reason that any child does without any real need except for the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the custodial.

And when the custodial sees it as "unfair" then they have no business being given legal custody at all. I say give the custody to the parent with the money instead of taking the money and giving it to the custodial that fails to provide the custody.


:popcorn: I do not accept the nonsense that any person (parent or otherwise) chooses to be poor.

But here in the USA the citizens are said to have freedom and if one wants to live a simple life or live wild then that is a normal human right and a person's free choice, and if poor parents have children then the children only get the life style that their poor parents give them.

It seems very inhuman to me to say that poor people can not have children unless they can afford a certain level of Child Support.


:duel:

So you want the CP to go to their extended family or churches instead of the other parent who helped create that child? Do you realize how absurd that is?

:popcorn: What you are saying is that the child has a "right" to their parents' money and it is just not true.

Here are several facts that YOU ARE NOT GETTING!!!

FACT 1: When you fail to pay child support, you are being dragged back into court, not for failing to pay, but you are failing to comply with a court order.

FACT 2: Child support rates are based on State standards based on earnings by both parents. In the event the person paying support has a defined reduction in wages, he/she may request the courts to re-evaluate their case, in an effort to have their support adjusted.

FACT 3: With regard to the quote you made above... A child must be supported by his parents. I'm not sure why you believe that it is fair, reasonable, or expected that the State should support you child, when parents are able to support them. You can work, get off your duff and get one or two jobs to support yourself and YOUR KID!!!

OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay. If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!

OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay. If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!

He denied paternity? :lol: I guess paternity was confirmed because the boy is a deadbeat himself.

:popcorn: No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court NO, I AM TALKING ABOUT CONTEMPT HEARINGSand I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.THAT IS CRIMINAL NON SUPPORT- ARREARS OVER 10K & NO PAYMENT IN LAST 12 MONTHS OR 3 PREVIOUS CONTEMPT HEARINGS IN 1 YEAR

And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters APPARENTLY YOU DON'T BECAUSE JUDGE MICHAEL STAMM HEARS ALL THE CONTEMPT CASESand not by a real Judge, HE IS A REAL JUDGE- NOT A MASTERand I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, NO SOME ARE LIKE YOU AND WOULDN'T EVEN WORK IN A PIE FACTORY --TESTING PIESand if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.

Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.
Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.




:duel:

You have convinced me, that you are truely entitled to Social Security disability benefits...As the only possible answer here must be mental illness

You have just won one election.. the honor of being the first person that I put on ignore..

BUH BYE!

So you want the CP to go to their extended family or churches instead of the other parent who helped create that child? Do you realize how absurd that is?
:howdy: No, it is NOT absurd at all. That is the traditional way for human beings all through history and in every culture in the entire World.

And it is a beautiful way of families pulling together.

And if we look at the true Americana story of the Walton's of Walton's Mountain by today's "modern" standard, then the Grandparents could have thrown out the Walton kids with the grandchildren, and the couple would break-up being too poor to pay rent for their 7 kids, and the Mom would go on Welfare with the father going to jail for Child Support, and that is all because in today's society the USA social norms have lost the Americana traditions and many turn to easy divorces with stealing of Child Support and broken families.

If today our Welfare laws would allow both the Parents with the children to get on Public Assistance as needed then it would help to hold the most vulnerable families together - but no.

What we do have is a family-unit break-up legal system that works great at destroying families.


:duel:

:blahblah:

A child must be supported by his parents. I'm not sure why you believe that it is fair, reasonable, or expected that the State should support you child, when parents are able to support them. You can work, get off your duff and get one or two jobs to support yourself and YOUR KID!!!
:popcorn: I only expect the State to support the children when the parents are poor (or the custodial needs it) and when they qualify for the Assistance.

Otherwise as in most cases I would prefer that the State to get completely out of the supporting of children business because so far the State has messed the whole thing up with its ignorant Child Support laws.

Other people want the State involved in supporting children but I want the State to get completely out of the Child Support business.


:duel:

this is all beyond ridiculous.. JPC, I bet your wife actually died of embarrassment! In the past, I have been supportive of your expression of opinion but I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing you spew off your word vomit. It gets old... STFU And a good way to ensure you STFU is to cut off your audience... so to those that respond to him, STOP!

this is all beyond ridiculous.. JPC, I bet your wife actually died of embarrassment! In the past, I have been supportive of your expression of opinion but I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing you spew off your word vomit. It gets old... STFU And a good way to ensure you STFU is to cut off your audience... so to those that respond to him, STOP!
worked on the baltimore sun forum.
people quit responding, and as far as I know (havent been in a while) he stopped posting.

OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay. If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!
:popcorn: It appears that you have my record mixed up with my son's case as we both have the same name and he is 32 and I am 53.

I never asked for any paternity test for my son as I was legally and happily married and my son looked exactly like me at his birth.

And my son asked for a paternity test for my Granddaughter because he wanted a test so no one could say it was not his daughter, and I myself happily paid the cost for his paternity testing. And his daughter looked very much like him too.

And my election campaign against Child Support has absolutely nothing to do with myself as my own case is closed and finished years ago around 1996 ?


:duel:

You have just won one election.. the honor of being the first person that I put on ignore..

:howdy: The ignore is fine with me, and please take a few friends into hiding with you.




:duel:

worked on the baltimore sun forum.
people quit responding, and as far as I know (havent been in a while) he stopped posting.
:whistle: Do not you see how cowardice is so contagious?

I really only enjoy a discussion with the bold and the brave, so have fun in Never Land. :howdy:



:drummer:

UH-OH

JP is getting another slap down on his theory.

And the rest of us get some possible relief (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.briefs141oct14002043,0,1545292.story)

What do you think about the state raising the child support ?

JPC is running for office that would provide him a steady income from the state. Yet everything he stands for is against the system. Too bad he was not smart enough to buy some condoms. He has internet access but thinks his kid should just get by off of his ex and extended family.

JPC list one thing that you have done that has actually contributed to your community and not to yourself. Personally I am still in shock that someone was dumb enough to breed with you but I am thinking she wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree though.

If you want to make change then start within. Politicians are not about change they are popularity contests. You are not popular so you will never be anything other than a nutjob with a can of spray paint and a bag full of lame excuses.

UH-OH

JP is getting another slap down on his theory.

And the rest of us get some possible relief (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.briefs141oct14002043,0,1545292.story)

What do you think about the state raising the child support ?

:yahoo::yahoo::patriot::patriot::thewave::thewave:

Make the dead beats pay triple and get them out of our pockets. Their spawn they should support it not us.

Additionally I think we should rename JPC to Bobby, his little tangle with the bulls in the St Mary's lockup had him squealing just like Bobby in Deliverance.

Hey Bobby remember the old days?
YouTube - Squeal Like A Pig (Deliverance) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4LnfkdJDM)

:howdy: No, it is NOT absurd at all. That is the traditional way for human beings all through history and in every culture in the entire World.

And it is a beautiful way of families pulling together.

And if we look at the true Americana story of the Walton's of Walton's Mountain by today's "modern" standard, then the Grandparents could have thrown out the Walton kids with the grandchildren, and the couple would break-up being too poor to pay rent for their 7 kids, and the Mom would go on Welfare with the father going to jail for Child Support, and that is all because in today's society the USA social norms have lost the Americana traditions and many turn to easy divorces with stealing of Child Support and broken families.

If today our Welfare laws would allow both the Parents with the children to get on Public Assistance as needed then it would help to hold the most vulnerable families together - but no.

What we do have is a family-unit break-up legal system that works great at destroying families.


:duel:

Ok so you say it's a beautiful way of families pulling together. So wouldn't it be beautiful for a custodial parent AND a non custodial parent to pull together for their child? :duh:

And the rest of us get some possible relief (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.briefs141oct14002043,0,1545292.story)

What do you think about the state raising the child support ?
:popcorn: It is important to see in the Baltimore Sun link above which says that the call to raise the child support requirements is just to raise Maryland guidelines to be on "par" with other States.

It is NOT because the custodials need more assistance,
and it is NOT because children are doing without,
and NOT because the paying parents can afford the increase - oh no.

The call to raise the child support payments is based on absolutely no need and no justification except to take more and to take as much as other States are taking.

This is an example of what is meant by the association of thieves, and the competition of thieves.

And the last two (2) sentences in that link says;

"a parent who now pays about $360 per month to support one child would have to pay about $457. Parents in the lowest income brackets would pay less than they do now if the recommendations are adopted. "

So it CLAIMS the lowest incomes pay less but those now paying the $360 are really poor already because a c/s order of $360 per month is for a working class parent that is not rich at all. There are many parents in jail now that have their child support payment as less than $360 and they want to raise this to $475 so we can put many more parents into poverty and into jail.

That Baltimore Sun report in that link shows that the Child Support is not to support children and it is only about stealing more and more money with no regard at all for the people that it hurts.

And pretending to help families by ripping-off the separated parents is a lie because the separated parents are part of the family unit.



:duel:

:popcorn: It is important to see in the Baltimore Sun link above which says that the call to raise the child support requirements is just to raise Maryland guidelines to be on "par" with other States.

It is NOT because the custodials need more assistance,
and it is NOT because children are doing without,
and NOT because the paying parents can afford the increase - oh no.

The call to raise the child support payments is based on absolutely no need and no justification except to take more and to take as much as other States are taking.

This is an example of what is meant by the association of thieves, and the competition of thieves.

And the last two (2) sentences in that link says;

"a parent who now pays about $360 per month to support one child would have to pay about $457. Parents in the lowest income brackets would pay less than they do now if the recommendations are adopted. "

So it CLAIMS the lowest incomes pay less but those now paying the $360 are really poor already because a c/s order of $360 per month is for a working class parent that is not rich at all. There are many parents in jail now that have their child support payment as less than $360 and they want to raise this to $475 so we can put many more parents into poverty and into jail.

That Baltimore Sun report in that link shows that the Child Support is not to support children and it is only about stealing more and more money with no regard at all for the people that it hurts.

And pretending to help families by ripping-off the separated parents is a lie because the separated parents are part of the family unit.



:duel:
actually I think they are trying to offset what it costs the responsible taxpayers to supplement the deadbeats children.

However, please feel free to spin it however needed to justify your plan of vengeance.

JPC is running for office that would provide him a steady income from the state. Yet everything he stands for is against the system.
:yahoo: Sure, when I become Governor then I am going to fix the system and make it better.

It is a great idea and an excellent plan.



Too bad he was not smart enough to buy some condoms. He has internet access but thinks his kid should just get by off of his ex and extended family.
:whistle: My son is grown 32 and my own c/s case is long years closed and over.

But I do not agree with "condoms" and I am happy that I had my son, and I do not recommend condoms for birth control as I say to most anyone to keep having more babies.



JPC list one thing that you have done that has actually contributed to your community and not to yourself.
:popcorn: I simply must say that the best thing I ever did for society or for the entire World was the day I decided to spray paint the SMC Courthouse with the words "Child Support is legalized thievery" and "Thou shalt not steal" because that marks the day that true active resistance began and I still feel really proud of my action then and there.

That was the day when my active preaching of righteousness truly began.



Personally I am still in shock that someone was dumb enough to [marry] with you but I am thinking she wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree though.
:howdy: We met in Chopticon High School and we were both young and foolish, and I say it turned out as destined to turn out, and she certainly was a great blessing to me.



If you want to make change then start within. Politicians are not about change they are popularity contests. You are not popular so you will never be anything other than a nutjob with a can of spray paint and a bag full of lame excuses.
:whistle: We shall see.




:duel:

:patriot: A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.

Sad story but very real indeed.


:duel:

You are a disgrace to parenthood and more importantly to your children. You are an effin' idiot. Crawl back under your rock please!

Ok so you say it's a beautiful way of families pulling together.

So wouldn't it be beautiful for a custodial parent AND a non custodial parent to pull together for their child? :duh:
:popcorn: Yes I do, and what you describe is called "marriage" where both parents pull together for their children.

But the law as it is now does the opposite in that the laws divide and separate and break up the families.

Separation and divorce is where the parents pull-apart, and the laws give easy divorce and gives custody that legally steals the children from one parent, and Child Support that gives a false appearance of union or working together when they are not.

The laws need to promote, protect and preserve the family unit and stop dividing it.


:duel:

:popcorn: Yes I do, and what you describe is called "marriage" where both parents pull together for their children.

But the law as it is now does the opposite in that the laws divide and separate and break up the families.

Separation and divorce is where the parents pull-apart, and the laws give easy divorce and gives custody that legally steals the children from one parent, and Child Support that gives a false appearance of union or working together when they are not.

The laws need to promote, protect and preserve the family unit and stop dividing it.


:duel:

No one stole your child from you. From what you said you are the one who walked away from your son and left him with his mother. That was YOUR choice.

Divorced or not it is still your moral and legal obligation to support your child.

Please help me understand why you all are STILL wasting your time arguing with JPC? Do you think you will change his mind or something?

Forums, just as in society as a whole, need people that can be picked on and prodded to make others feel better about themselves.

and its fun.
to me.
sorta

well, no, not really

I have no clue.

No one stole your child from you. From what you said you are the one who walked away from your son and left him with his mother. That was YOUR choice.
:popcorn: I am talking about legally stealing as under the custody laws and the Child Support laws and not about the custodials stealing because the custodials are subject to the ignorant laws too. The custodials only receive the stolen money and have custody of the stolen children.

Giving custody to one parent means the other parent has legally lost their own child which is equivalent to kidnapping or stealing the children. Then the separated parent must pay the Child Support as ransom money or else they will never see their children again.

The system is full of stealing and kidnapping and robberies, and more.



Divorced or not it is still your moral and legal obligation to support your child.
:popcorn: There is no real morality in paying Child Support and the only real morality is in defying the Child support, and on top of that the children are already provided with everything they need to overflowing so there is no morality at all in paying the Child Support.


:duel:

Please help me understand why you all are STILL wasting your time arguing with JPC? Do you think you will change his mind or something?
:popcorn: It is not about changing anyone's mind and you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.

We are not changing minds, it is about changing the laws and changing the State and changing the whole world.

And yes we do have the power to do it.



:duel:

:popcorn: It is not about changing anyone's mind and you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.

We are not changing minds, it is about changing the laws and changing the State and changing the whole world.

And yes we do have the power to do it.



:duel:
Who is we?

because, if the majority of "WE" had our way, you might still be in prison for neglecting your child.

Though it is VERY clear to me that this JP person is off his freakin rocker..I have always had strong feeling about child support...I think that it is set up all wrong. ALLLLL too often it is used as punishment, not as real support. It is a punishment because the marriage or relationship or whatever didnt work out like someone wanted it to....my uncle has to pay out the ass to his ex..and she wont let him see the kids! is that fair? he wants to see them...and be involved but her crazy ass wont let him..so he takes her to court..to see them..and she starts making up riduculous things..all dismissed..but guess what? he still cant see them..thats just one example of many men I know that pay child support..it is punishment..guy gets a raise at work...and boom ex finds out about it..look whos goin to court again? and I know many women who dont use it for their children at all...they use it to make their lifestyles better. Now im SURE there are couples out there who work it out well and use it as intended..ive seen that too..

that being said..i cant really think of a way it can be changed to avoid "punishment" so it kinda has to be the way it is...just make sure who you breed with is a decent human..i guess

you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.

I do not recall claiming to be a mind reader. But I do know that it's futile to argue with you, so I won't bother.

:popcorn: It is not about changing anyone's mind and you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.

We are not changing minds, it is about changing the laws and changing the State and changing the whole world.

And yes we do have the power to do it.



:duel:

I believe in personal responsibility. You choose to ride the mattress happy w/o an effective Papa Stoppa, you by default have decided to follow the law of the land and be held accountable for your part in the creation and upbringing of a baby. If you aren't paying child support there's a good chance our tax money is feeding, clothing, and housing your spawn. Call it a loan. Judge ordered you to pay that 'loan' back. Why should the rest of us pay for your kid's needs?

Can't get a job due to a disabilty? What? I know a blind attorney, a wheel chair bound engineer with severe MS... Ever hear of Stephen Hawkings? There are places even the severly mentally handicapped can go to make a few bucks and a little pride, assembling knick-knacks and doo-dads. If you can operate a computer and get on this forum you can get a freakin' J-O-B.

If you want to change the world, perhaps you should have been telling people to keep their Mr. Happy in their pants rather than running around screwing everything that moves. You could tell people now how to not screw up their lives by popping out a kid they aren't willing to support, and explain the impact on their lives from your own perspective.

You porked. She popped. You pay. Nothing unfair about it. The law is as it should be.

This Dbag is moron...let me your fix quote...”WE" have the power to do it...to YOU DONT HAVE POWER TO DO SHI$! Here are a few of the many reasons you will not be elected...douche bag at its best...BAHAHAHAH:buddies:

I believe in personal responsibility. You choose to ride the mattress happy w/o an effective Papa Stoppa, you by default have decided to follow the law of the land and be held accountable for your part in the creation and upbringing of a baby. If you aren't paying child support there's a good chance our tax money is feeding, clothing, and housing your spawn. Call it a loan. Judge ordered you to pay that 'loan' back. Why should the rest of us pay for your kid's needs?

Can't get a job due to a disabilty? What? I know a blind attorney, a wheel chair bound engineer with severe MS... Ever hear of Stephen Hawkings? There are places even the severly mentally handicapped can go to make a few bucks and a little pride, assembling knick-knacks and doo-dads. If you can operate a computer and get on this forum you can get a freakin' J-O-B.

If you want to change the world, perhaps you should have been telling people to keep their Mr. Happy in their pants rather than running around screwing everything that moves. You could tell people now how to not screw up their lives by popping out a kid they aren't willing to support, and explain the impact on their lives from your own perspective.

You porked. She popped. You pay. Nothing unfair about it. The law is as it should be.



:yay: AWESOME way with words. :roflmao:

Though it is VERY clear to me that this JP person is off his freakin rocker..I have always had strong feeling about child support...I think that it is set up all wrong. ALLLLL too often it is used as punishment, not as real support. It is a punishment because the marriage or relationship or whatever didnt work out like someone wanted it to....my uncle has to pay out the ass to his ex..and she wont let him see the kids! is that fair? he wants to see them...and be involved but her crazy ass wont let him..so he takes her to court..to see them..and she starts making up riduculous things..all dismissed..but guess what? he still cant see them..thats just one example of many men I know that pay child support..it is punishment..guy gets a raise at work...and boom ex finds out about it..look whos goin to court again? and I know many women who dont use it for their children at all...they use it to make their lifestyles better. Now im SURE there are couples out there who work it out well and use it as intended..ive seen that too..

that being said..i cant really think of a way it can be changed to avoid "punishment" so it kinda has to be the way it is...just make sure who you breed with is a decent human..i guess
:popcorn: Off my rocker is okay because I am also a legally registered Democratic candidate for the Office of Maryland Governor.

So what I find is the same as you do that Child Support is ONLY about "punishing" the parents and it is NOT about supporting children at all.

And you see the ignorance of it in your Uncle's case but I find it to be ignorant and destructive in every family that Child Support is connected to.

Your conclusion that it needs to be accepted and it can not be changed is just a defeatist mentality of surrender and servitude to injustice without a fight, and I say no to that.

We can do some thing and we can break the dirty thieves and it has already begun to break down.


:duel:

I do know that it's futile to argue with you, so I won't bother.
:howdy: The reason for that is because I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.

This is a not a competition of who can beat the other because it is simply a moral question of right from wrong.

Stealing is wrong, receiving stolen money is wrong, and children do not need the Child Support is true.

I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.


:duel:

:howdy: The reason for that is because I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.

This is a not a competition of who can beat the other because it is simply a moral question of right from wrong.

Stealing is wrong, receiving stolen money is wrong, and children do not need the Child Support is true.

I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.


:duel:

Wrong.

:popcorn: I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.

And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.

I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.

It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.


:duel:

Wait? What? A "right" to public assistance? Since when? PA is not a "right". Am I reading this right? It's a "right" for the mother of a child with a deadbeat dad to recieve taxpayer funds in the form of public assistance, but when the state goes after the biological father for those funds, it's "sunful stolen money"?

So... I and every other taxpayer gets to pay for your spawn, and that's OK by you, as long as you aren't expected to pay for the poor little bastard's needs yourself?

I think the best way to 'fix' child support law would be to neuter / spay all the deadbeat dads and moms out there, and call it done. Once a non-custodial parent goes beyond 180 days delinquent and fiscal ability to pay is shown as according to gross pay - basic living expenses, 'snip'. Done deal. Debt forgiven, and no more bouncy bouncy. I'm not tlking about a simple vasectomy or ligitation, I'm talking hedge clippers / ice cream scoop.

If I have to pay for YOUR kid, then you shouldn't able to have more.

Here is a reenactment of when the X-Mrs Cusick through Bobby out.

YouTube - This Cat Betrayed His Girlfriend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3sX30NubTs)

Wait? What? A "right" to public assistance? Since when? PA is not a "right".
:howdy: Yes Public Assistance is a "right" for any citizen that qualifies.

And a "right" only means that the person can only be denied if they are unqualified by the given rules.

And the US Constitution says that the gov is to "promote the general welfare" of the population.



Am I reading this right? It's a "right" for the mother of a child with a deadbeat dad to receive taxpayer funds in the form of public assistance, but when the state goes after the biological father for those funds, it's "sinful stolen money"?
:popcorn: There really are no "deadbeat" Dads and a mother that qualifies for Public Assistance is thereby entitled to it, thank God.

And neither the State nor anyone else has any right to steal money from the separated parents (Dads or Moms) as that is "stealing" as in "Thou shalt not steal" and so yes that is sinful to do, and it is then sinful money.



So... I and every other taxpayer gets to pay for your spawn, and that's OK by you, as long as you aren't expected to pay for the poor little bastard's needs yourself?
:bigwhoop: You might view children as "bastards" and as "spawn" but it is wrong to put such an ignorant view into our laws or into our social consciousness.

We have Public Assistance programs for citizens in need and rightly so.



I think the best way to 'fix' child support law would be to neuter / spay all the deadbeat dads and moms out there, and call it done. Once a non-custodial parent goes beyond 180 days delinquent and fiscal ability to pay is shown as according to gross pay - basic living expenses, 'snip'. Done deal. Debt forgiven, and no more bouncy bouncy. I'm not talking about a simple vasectomy or ligation, I'm talking hedge clippers / ice cream scoop.
:popcorn: It is barbaric and inhuman to base parenting and childbirth on the person's money levels, and basing children on money is a sick mentality.



If I have to pay for YOUR kid, then you shouldn't able to have more.
:bigwhoop: You are not really paying for kids on Public Assistance, and I myself would be happy to take full care of yours or anyone's kids because I see kids as a blessing.


:duel:

"promote the general welfare" of the population.
I dont think you actually understand what the meaning of welfare was when it was used in the constitution.
Do you think that by any slim chance, the system created to steal from one and give to the lazy was by any chance at all, called welfare to fool the idiots that didnt understand the original wordage in the constitution?






You are not really paying for kids on Public Assistance, and I myself would be happy to take full care of yours or anyone's kids because I see kids as a blessing.



and yet, you were totally unwilling to support your own child. How strange does that sound to you?
sounds pretty damn ignorant if you ask me.

hell, you even left the state so you didnt even contribute in the way of taxes during that period.

your claim that you would be happy to take full care of anyone other than yourself (and you dont even do that) falls short on merit.

:howdy: The reason for that is because I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.

This is a not a competition of who can beat the other because it is simply a moral question of right from wrong.

Stealing is wrong, receiving stolen money is wrong, and children do not need the Child Support is true.

I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.


:duel:

:lmao:

Whatever you say...

Thought everyone was going to stop entertaining him......reminds me of my ex, always has to get the last word in and will hound you into agreeing with him.

Oh, I pay my CS every month :howdy:

From the CATO institute.


The concept of welfare rights reflects a much more expansive conception of the role of government than anything envisioned by the Founding Fathers. "For Jefferson," observes legal scholar Louis Henkin, "the poor had no right to be free from want. The framers saw the purposes of government as being to police and safeguard, not to feed and clothe and house." To this day the Supreme Court has not recognized a constitutional right to welfare goods.


I think I might have to consider the CATO institutes opinion over JPCs. I guessing and, this is just a guess, that those in the institute might have a year or so more formal education that JPC. or, me for that matter.

so, according to them,
The purpose of the government was not to feed and clothe and house those that refused to work and earn their own way.
the purpose of the government as far as the welfare of the country, was simply insure that those things required for someone to succeed, should they wish, were in place to do so.
seems that the supreme court also sees it that way since they do not recognize a constitutional right to welfare goods. (food, clothes, housing.)

Sorry JPC, you lose on this one. Welfare, as in payment from government to individual citizens is not a right, it is a privilege.

Please do try and follow along. the sooner you understand these things, the sooner you will understand why it is a parents duty, and responsibility to support their own children financially, and emotionally.

Sorry JPC, you lose on this one.

Are you seriously trying to "win" something over a person like JPC?

Seriously?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

:yay:

Are you seriously trying to "win" something over a person like JPC?

Seriously?
dont bother, I'll get it myself.

:smack:

Are you seriously trying to "win" something over a person like JPC?

Seriously?

JPC/Bobby reminds me of that last kernal of corn, no matter how many times you flush it won't go away.

JPC/Bobby reminds me of that last kernal of corn, no matter how many times you flush it won't go away.
Psssst
you might want to back off on some of the fiber in your diet.

although, I'm sure that somewhere in the constitution is written the right to produce stubborn floaters.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

What she said :yeahthat:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
:howdy: The saying below is far more accurate;


"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. "

Friedrich Nietzsche




:duel:

Sorry JPC, you lose on this one. Welfare, as in payment from government to individual citizens is not a right, it is a privilege.

:getdown: It is a "privilege" because a citizen first has to qualify for any Public Assistance.

But after the citizens does qualify then the Public Assistance becomes their right.


:drummer:

:popcorn: I am talking about legally stealing as under the custody laws and the Child Support laws and not about the custodials stealing because the custodials are subject to the ignorant laws too. The custodials only receive the stolen money and have custody of the stolen children.

Giving custody to one parent means the other parent has legally lost their own child which is equivalent to kidnapping or stealing the children. Then the separated parent must pay the Child Support as ransom money or else they will never see their children again.

The system is full of stealing and kidnapping and robberies, and more.


:popcorn: There is no real morality in paying Child Support and the only real morality is in defying the Child support, and on top of that the children are already provided with everything they need to overflowing so there is no morality at all in paying the Child Support.


:duel:

What is provided with everything they need to OVERFLOWING? And how in the he!! do you know about all children of a single parent home?

Back away from the bong or bottle :otter:

Though it is VERY clear to me that this JP person is off his freakin rocker..I have always had strong feeling about child support...I think that it is set up all wrong. ALLLLL too often it is used as punishment, not as real support. It is a punishment because the marriage or relationship or whatever didnt work out like someone wanted it to....my uncle has to pay out the ass to his ex..and she wont let him see the kids! is that fair? he wants to see them...and be involved but her crazy ass wont let him..so he takes her to court..to see them..and she starts making up riduculous things..all dismissed..but guess what? he still cant see them..thats just one example of many men I know that pay child support..it is punishment..guy gets a raise at work...and boom ex finds out about it..look whos goin to court again? and I know many women who dont use it for their children at all...they use it to make their lifestyles better. Now im SURE there are couples out there who work it out well and use it as intended..ive seen that too..





that being said..i cant really think of a way it can be changed to avoid "punishment" so it kinda has to be the way it is...just make sure who you breed with is a decent human..i guess

:crazy:

:getdown: It is a "privilege" because a citizen first has to qualify for any Public Assistance.

But after the citizens does qualify then the Public Assistance becomes their right.


:drummer:

Are you even aware of the difference between a "right" and a priviledge?

"Rights" apply to all citizens. Unless guaranteed by the federal or state constitution, it is not a "right". Nothing in either constitution gives you a "right" to public assistance. Sheesh.

:howdy: Yes Public Assistance is a "right" for any citizen that qualifies.

And a "right" only means that the person can only be denied if they are unqualified by the given rules.

Wrong. Rights are defined by the constitution as rights. Nowhere are you given a right to public assistance.

And the US Constitution says that the gov is to "promote the general welfare" of the population.

So if I promote oil changes at Jiffy Lube I'm expected to pay for everyone's oil? They promote it by granting everyone the same opportunities. If you decide to take a path in life that leaves you behind, broke and destitute, that's your problem.



:popcorn: There really are no "deadbeat" Dads and a mother that qualifies for Public Assistance is thereby entitled to it, thank God.

And neither the State nor anyone else has any right to steal money from the separated parents (Dads or Moms) as that is "stealing" as in "Thou shalt not steal" and so yes that is sinful to do, and it is then sinful money.

Riiight. There are no deadbeat dads because it isn't their fault the woman got pregnant.... someone held a gun to their heads and made them f***. And the sun is purple, and my shoes have rocket power. Let's just clarify this.... You believe that a man should be able to impregnate a woman, and that when he refuses to contribute montetarily to the child's care, that should be his choice and the state should not go after him to make him pay for his kid's needs. Does that pretty much sum it up?

So do you believe that state should not enforce consequence for anything then? Burn all the laws, demolish all the jails, let anarchy rule? Or do you only feel this way on topics that are personal to you? It's good for JP, so screw everyone else, including the kids?


You might view children as "bastards" and as "spawn" but it is wrong to put such an ignorant view into our laws or into our social consciousness.

No, I view any children with absentee deadbeat fathers as 'bastards', by the true definition of the word. Look it up. Spawn? Does that offend you? Spawn simply means 'offspring'. Of course, in your case, it might be 'demon spawn', who knows...


We have Public Assistance programs for citizens in need and rightly so.


That is a matter of opinion. Our PA system is geared for long term assistance and tends to trap people into it's web. It should be tailored for short term emergency assistance, and toward getting people educated and employed. The PA system currently penalizes people for incremental success, and it should not. It is broken, and has been broken since it's inception, as it is used as a tool to keep the poverty stricken under the boot of the Democratic party.


:popcorn: It is barbaric and inhuman to base parenting and childbirth on the person's money levels, and basing children on money is a sick mentality.


Opinion again. I feel it is barbaric and cruel to bring a child into this world and divest yourself of any and all responsibility for it's welfare, financial or emotional, yet that is exactly what you are advocating for. Nice!


:bigwhoop: You are not really paying for kids on Public Assistance, and I myself would be happy to take full care of yours or anyone's kids because I see kids as a blessing.

:killingme:killingme:killingme
OK so here we have a guy who says kids are not entitled to their biological father's financial support. This guys says the state should not make sure daddy is doing his part. Now he says kids are a blessing... :killingme
Yeahhh.... demonize the child support system and absolve all the deadbeat dads from their responsibility because you believe children are a blessing... You do realize that makes no sense right?

Really? You would be happy to take full care of my kids? You believe you shouldn't have to take care of your own, but your willing to care for other people's? That's just creepy.

What is provided with everything they need to OVERFLOWING? And how in the he!! do you know about all children of a single parent home?

Back away from the bong or bottle :otter:
:howdy: One way of knowing that all children in the USA have all of their needs overflowing is that there are Social Services in every State of the USA and there are Churches and charities and Thrift stores and lots of other provisions available to any custodial or child in need of anything.

And a second way of knowing is that the Federal Law allows every State in the USA to take the Child Support payments from the poorest of poor families on Welfare because the law knows all the custodials and all the children already have all they need to overflowing.

So since the State takes and keeps the Child Support loot from the poorest of the poor families then we can know that all other families have more money and more options because other custodials are richer than the poorest of the poor custodials.

Therefore I can confidently say as-a-matter-of-fact that all children in the entire USA already have all of their true needs provided to OVERFLOWING without counting even one penny of the Child Support.



:getdown:

:howdy: One way of knowing that all children in the USA have all of their needs overflowing is that there are Social Services in every State of the USA and there are Churches and charities and Thrift stores and lots of other provisions available to any custodial or child in need of anything.

And a second way of knowing is that the Federal Law allows every State in the USA to take the Child Support payments from the poorest of poor families on Welfare because the law knows all the custodials and all the children already have all they need to overflowing.

So since the State takes and keeps the Child Support loot from the poorest of the poor families then we can know that all other families have more money and more options because other custodials are richer than the poorest of the poor custodials.

Therefore I can confidently say as-a-matter-of-fact that all children in the entire USA already have all of their true needs provided to OVERFLOWING without counting even one penny of the Child Support.



:getdown:


Which does not negate the responsibility you incur to your biological children. Society should not have to pay for the sexual adventures of the irresponsible and lazy. The money for the services and necessities you talk about comes from the pockets of tax payers and philanthropists, it doesn't materialize out of thin air. The parents should be supporting to the fullest extent they are financially able to. If that means daddy has to live at the bare minimum, no beer money, no cable, just a small shared apartment, take the bus instead of own a car, hot dogs instead of steak, than that's what daddy needs to do.

Just my opinion.

Riiight. There are no deadbeat dads because it isn't their fault the woman got pregnant.... someone held a gun to their heads and made them f***. And the sun is purple, and my shoes have rocket power.
:howdy: The calling of parents as "deadbeats" has nothing to do with impregnating woman or penalizing the Alpha males - no, parents are called that just for not paying the Child Support.

And the so-called "deadbeats" in jail are just dead-broke and have no resources to pay the thieving Child Support.

So that name-calling is only an unjust slander against poor parents that have no money to pay.



Let's just clarify this.... You believe that a man should be able to impregnate a woman, and that when he refuses to contribute montetarily to the child's care, that should be his choice and the state should not go after him to make him pay for his kid's needs. Does that pretty much sum it up?
:popcorn: Yes, that is clear enough.

The father (or Mom) will voluntarily provide everything to their own children just as all human parents have always done, and for the times that a parent choses not to provide then that is a part of parenting, so having the State gov tracking down parents to pay cash when the children have no needs at all (and all have all they need) then that is an ignorant thing for the law to do.

Children and parenting are not a commodity where one must pay $500 per month and that means its done - no, parenting is not to be a money equation.



So do you believe that state should not enforce consequence for anything then? Burn all the laws, demolish all the jails, let anarchy rule? Or do you only feel this way on topics that are personal to you? It's good for JP, so screw everyone else, including the kids?
:howdy: No, parenting is not equatable to violent crimes.

Of course we need jails and laws and righteousness, but we do not need Parenting Police and we do not need the ignorant Child Support laws.



No, I view any children with absentee deadbeat fathers as 'bastards', by the true definition of the word. Look it up. Spawn? Does that offend you? Spawn simply means 'offspring'. Of course, in your case, it might be 'demon spawn', who knows...
:whistle: Unfortunately it is your filthy perception that subsequently gives you the filthy opinions too.

All children are a blessing from God.



Really? You would be happy to take full care of my kids? You believe you shouldn't have to take care of your own, but your willing to care for other people's? That's just creepy.
:popcorn: I do like taking care of our own children too, but do not pay the thievery of Child Support.


:drummer:

Wow. I was going to play the whole quote game again. But you know so little about the topic at hand it astounds me. I have never known a deadbeat parent who was jailed for not paying child support due to legitimate circumstances beyond their control. However, I know (or know of) many who have been jailed because they DECIDED not to pay child support in favor of living at a higher standard themselves.

The FACT is that the state will work with you if you have legitmate circumstances that put you in a financial position where you are incapable of meeting court ordered child support. Key word is legitimate. If you were laid off, lost your legs, broke your back, suffered an anuerism, etc they will work with you. If you decide to QUIT your job, or you need an LCD TV and cable w/ internet, or beer, or drugs, or a new truck, or a bigger house, or your own apartment, or money for the bar to try to knock up other women; and skip out on your payments to get it, then no, they won't work with you, which is as it should be.

The world would be a much nicer place if such people would STFU, suck it up, and live up to their responsibilities rather than cut and run and make lame excuses every time it got a little tough for them.

I don't care if you are on a fixed income of $1500/ month. You can live on $1000 and pay your support. Get a cheap apartment w/ a roomie, eat ramen noodles and hotdogs and cold cereal. And do your friggin' part.

Wow. I was going to play the whole quote game again. But you know so little about the topic at hand it astounds me. I have never known a deadbeat parent who was jailed for not paying child support due to legitimate circumstances beyond their control. However, I know (or know of) many who have been jailed because they DECIDED not to pay child support in favor of living at a higher standard themselves.

The FACT is that the state will work with you if you have legitmate circumstances that put you in a financial position where you are incapable of meeting court ordered child support. Key word is legitimate. If you were laid off, lost your legs, broke your back, suffered an anuerism, etc they will work with you. If you decide to QUIT your job, or you need an LCD TV and cable w/ internet, or beer, or drugs, or a new truck, or a bigger house, or your own apartment, or money for the bar to try to knock up other women; and skip out on your payments to get it, then no, they won't work with you, which is as it should be.

The world would be a much nicer place if such people would STFU, suck it up, and live up to their responsibilities rather than cut and run and make lame excuses every time it got a little tough for them.

I don't care if you are on a fixed income of $1500/ month. You can live on $1000 and pay your support. Get a cheap apartment w/ a roomie, eat ramen noodles and hotdogs and cold cereal. And do your friggin' part.
:howdy: I certainly know that I am against people like you, and I do not need every vote to be elected, and I say you give us all an excellent example of the equation concerning Child Support and my position.

Parents have a choice of doing as you expect in your quote above, or do as I say and defy you and defy the entire Child Support system and fight it.

The parents and families can become slaves to that crap as you expect, or become free as I offer and direct.

And I do not say that the parents must fight alone because people of conscience like myself that are not involved with Child Support need to help out our society by helping the parents to fight the hateful and ignorant claims of yours and of the Child Support system.

Your claims are as fraudulent as the claims of Child Support - and I defy you both.


:duel:

:howdy: I certainly know that I am against people like you, and I do not need every vote to be elected, and I say you give us all an excellent example of the equation concerning Child Support and my position.

Parents have a choice of doing as you expect in your quote above, or do as I say and defy you and defy the entire Child Support system and fight it.

The parents and families can become slaves to that crap as you expect, or become free as I offer and direct.

And I do not say that the parents must fight alone because people of conscience like myself that are not involved with Child Support need to help out our society by helping the parents to fight the hateful and ignorant claims of yours and of the Child Support system.

Your claims are as fraudulent as the claims of Child Support - and I defy you both.


:duel:

Heck you are defying reason too.

People like me... You must mean hard working, responsible, educated Americans who want everyone to pull their own weight, and to be responsible parents and citizens. :)

"Hateful and ignorant". LOL. Sure, JP. Please explain to me how demanding that parents live up to their responsibilities is hateful? Or how not wanting to have to use taxpayer dollars to provide for someone elses children (except in extreme cases where the parents are unable... not unwilling or too lazy) is hateful? How is it that believing that we have a responsibility to provide for our biological children is ignorant, and how is believing that parents need to sacrifice and put off reward to do so is ignorant?

LOL. You are a card. "Need every vote". LOL. You dang sure need more than you're going to get, I can promise you that!

Now, can you cite a single factual and verifiable case where a 'deadbeat' parent was jailed for non payment of child support, where the parent was below the poverty line and suffering a financial hardship due to no fault of their own? IE severe medical issues, lay off, etc, and where they did not have assets they could have liquidated to pay the support? Just one bonafide, verifiable case? Not an "I heard" or a "me / my son / nephew / cousin / friend". Bet you can't.

Please explain to me how it is just for a child to live off meager PA funding while daddy drives around in his new pick up truck and goes home to his new house to watch his 54" TV? Cuz' that's what you are advocating.

JP, seriously, I'm telling you this for your own good. I'm not trying to be hurtful - I sincerely wish the best for you.

Let it go. You've been carrying the pain and bitterness long enough - it is time to let it go.

Your marriage didn't work, from what you've said (as that's all I have to go off of), it sounds like your wife didn't want you anymore - who knows why? We could speculate till the cows come home, but it doesn't matter. We could rattle off endless possible reasons, some of them emotionally biting and personally difficult to confront, some of them emotionally re-affirming and personally comforting to believe - it doesn't matter. She left you, or cheated on you, or you all broke up for whatever reason, and your 'family' was no more - at least not as you had desired it to be. That was not caused by the state. It was not caused by the state's child support enforcement system. It might not have seemed fair, and it might have been unfortunate - heck, it might even have been avoidable - but it wasn't something done to you by anyone other than yourself or your wife. No one else destroyed your family.

Now, I get that you were hurt. I get that you were emotionally frustrated. We've all been there at some point and to some degree - there's no shame in that. Life isn't about the situations we find ourselves in, it's about how we deal with those situations. I get that you were angry. You wanted to punish your wife by denying her financial support and making her life more difficult. I get that. I get how important that was to you - it was more important to you than taking care of your child, it was more important to you than your dignity, it was more important to you than staying out of jail. I get that. You were willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. I get that. It seems that you have harmed yourself a great deal in so doing, but that's in the past. I get that your anger at your wife was transplanted onto the child support enforcement system, because it dared to try to stop you from punishing your wife by not providing her with financial support. I get it. Really - we all do. But, I'm trying to suggest to you that it is not too late - you can still let it go. Let go of the anger and bitterness, and free up some space for the beautiful sensations and feelings and thoughts and experiences that the world will make available to you. Just let it go.

The child support system did not destroy your family - it just didn't.

Furthermore, whatever did - it just doesn't matter anymore - whatever happened, happened. That can't be changed by pretending that the fault for it is precisely embodied in some institution which you can now try to dismantle. That's delusional, and you need to let go of that delusion. Trust me on this, you will wake up a happier man the morning after you do. The world will smell better, it will taste better, it will look better. Your world will expand and possibilities will exist where before they had not. Please, forget about what everybody else thinks and do it for yourself - LET IT GO.

People like me... You must mean hard working, responsible, educated Americans who want everyone to pull their own weight, and to be responsible parents and citizens. :)
:howdy: I mean self righteous people like you, that speak as if your are better than others, and particularly that you are a better parent than other parents, and it is just your misguided and inflated ego.

And that is no meant as personal to you as I simply have to fight against your kind of belligerence.



"Hateful and ignorant". LOL. Sure, JP. Please explain to me how demanding that parents live up to their responsibilities is hateful? Or how not wanting to have to use taxpayer dollars to provide for someone else's children (except in extreme cases where the parents are unable... not unwilling or too lazy) is hateful? How is it that believing that we have a responsibility to provide for our biological children is ignorant, and how is believing that parents need to sacrifice and put off reward to do so is ignorant?
:popcorn: That is wrong because you and the State laws are not to be the "big-Daddy" to other people or to other parents.

The big-Daddy crud needs to be stopped.



LOL. You are a card. "Need every vote". LOL. You dang sure need more than you're going to get, I can promise you that!
:killingme Yes, I am happy that you too appreciate the humor in it.

There is no need to get too serious in our discussions.

And when I move into the Governor's Mansion then you will not need to eat so many of your words.



Now, can you cite a single factual and verifiable case where a 'deadbeat' parent was jailed for non payment of child support, where the parent was below the poverty line and suffering a financial hardship due to no fault of their own? IE severe medical issues, lay off, etc, and where they did not have assets they could have liquidated to pay the support? Just one bonafide, verifiable case? Not an "I heard" or a "me / my son / nephew / cousin / friend". Bet you can't.
:howdy: My position is that every parent with not even one exception was jailed for unjust reasons even when the parents themselves do not know it. And a lot of the parents see themselves as guilty when it is just that the law is perverted and unjust.

And it is not my point to pick up one or a hundred particular cases because it is a matter of overriding principle and policy that makes so every parent under those laws are mistreated and abused whether they are seen to deserve it or if they are completely innocent.

I refuse to play the divide-and-rule game that some parents are innocent while you go after the evil parents because I know that every one of the parents are getting cheated and violated by the laws.

And I feel I must point out that the SMC Circuit Court refuses to allow public scrutiny of the Child Support cases claiming the Court is protecting the "privacy" when the Court is only hiding the record of the immoral thievery by the Court.

But for the record here is an interesting case of the injustice done in SMC Child support enforcement : http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2000/116a99.pdf and it is a long document so you might want to start at the top of page 14 titled as "DISCUSSION" because that marks the High Court's actual decision.



Please explain to me how it is just for a child to live off meager PA funding while daddy drives around in his new pick up truck and goes home to his new house to watch his 54" TV? Cuz' that's what you are advocating.
:whistle: The PA (Public Assistance) benefits is not meager at all. In fact the PA gives enough and so very much both to the custodial and to the children that the State keeps the Child Support loot even if the parents (Daddies) pay the Child Support or not.

So it can not be a meager PA when the State keeps the c/s and does not give it to the families on PA.

And as the law is now the Child Support does attack the separated parents and so the law will steal the parents' truck and paycheck and the 54" TV too, so your example sounds justified but it is an untrue scenario. And if the Child Support system was eliminated then it is still an unjust scenario that other parents are not as righteous as you pretend to be.

I say it is wrong to make such junk into our laws and to put parents in jail because people like you do not trust thy fellow parents.



:drummer:

JP, seriously, I'm telling you this for your own good. I'm not trying to be hurtful - I sincerely wish the best for you.
Let it go. You've been carrying the pain and bitterness long enough - it is time to let it go.
Your marriage didn't work, from what you've said (as that's all I have to go off of), it sounds like your wife didn't want you anymore - who knows why?
That was not caused by the state. It was not caused by the state's child support enforcement system.
No one else destroyed your family.
Now, I get that you were hurt. I get that you were emotionally frustrated.
I get that your anger at your wife was transplanted onto the child support enforcement system, because it dared to try to stop you from punishing your wife by not providing her with financial support. I get it.
The child support system did not destroy your family - it just didn't.
Furthermore, whatever did - it just doesn't matter anymore - whatever happened, happened.
:howdy: I do not blame or accuse the State or the Child Support for breaking up my marriage, and not for destroying my family, and I am not emotionally frustrated, and I am not angry at my ex-wife.

I am not trying here to seek revenge, and if I were then I would use the weapons of revenge - but no.

I am really just trying to be a public servant, as in serving-the-public by addressing the Child Support problem, and I have nothing to gain from Child Support reform at all.

This is not about me or about my life and not about anything concerning me.


:drummer:

:howdy: I certainly know that I am against people like you, and I do not need every vote to be elected, and I say you give us all an excellent example of the equation concerning Child Support and my position.

Parents have a choice of doing as you expect in your quote above, or do as I say and defy you and defy the entire Child Support system and fight it.

The parents and families can become slaves to that crap as you expect, or become free as I offer and direct.

And I do not say that the parents must fight alone because people of conscience like myself that are not involved with Child Support need to help out our society by helping the parents to fight the hateful and ignorant claims of yours and of the Child Support system.

Your claims are as fraudulent as the claims of Child Support - and I defy you both.


:duel:

Maybe you can hang out with all the other deadbeats after child support court.. and you can get their vote.

I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.If this is true, why do you insist on continuing to pound the point instead of shutting up?

I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.And if this is true, why are you not currently holding a SMC Commissioner's seat or Hoyer's HoR seat?

(No reply is necessary because even if you do reply it will be digressing and false.)

I am amazed that you are still going, Jimmy. Not in an admiring way, of course, but more of a circus sideshow way. Anyone who does wish to get into it with you need only search on your posts from your previous election runs... it's easy to see the thousands of times you have already been proven incorrect, even a bona fide liar, on just about everything.

:howdy: I mean self righteous people like you, that speak as if your are better than others, and particularly that you are a better parent than other parents, and it is just your misguided and inflated ego.

And that is no meant as personal to you as I simply have to fight against your kind of belligerence.


Haha! I differ in my opinion and so I am self righteous... LOL. But then, yes, I do think I am a better parent. Because I am parenting. An absentee parent isn't much of a parent, by choice or not. They simply are not doing the job.


:popcorn: That is wrong because you and the State laws are not to be the "big-Daddy" to other people or to other parents.

The big-Daddy crud needs to be stopped.


How is that an answer to the question?


:killingme Yes, I am happy that you too appreciate the humor in it.

There is no need to get too serious in our discussions.

And when I move into the Governor's Mansion then you will not need to eat so many of your words.


Good luck with that.


My position is that every parent with not even one exception was jailed for unjust reasons even when the parents themselves do not know it. And a lot of the parents see themselves as guilty when it is just that the law is perverted and unjust.

And it is not my point to pick up one or a hundred particular cases because it is a matter of overriding principle and policy that makes so every parent under those laws are mistreated and abused whether they are seen to deserve it or if they are completely innocent.

I refuse to play the divide-and-rule game that some parents are innocent while you go after the evil parents because I know that every one of the parents are getting cheated and violated by the laws.

And I feel I must point out that the SMC Circuit Court refuses to allow public scrutiny of the Child Support cases claiming the Court is protecting the "privacy" when the Court is only hiding the record of the immoral thievery by the Court.

But for the record here is an interesting case of the injustice done in SMC Child support enforcement : http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2000/116a99.pdf and it is a long document so you might want to start at the top of page 14 titled as "DISCUSSION" because that marks the High Court's actual decision.


How convenient to simply dodge the question.

I also found this interesting, being that it reinforces my position, in your PDF...


"As these cases, and many others that preceded them, illustrate, it may be
frustrating to judges and masters to have to deal with people who appear to be deliberately ignoring their child-support obligations, by spending available funds for other purposes, by
voluntary impoverishment, by refusing to obtain steady employment, or by other techniques
—people who return time and again with excuses that the judge or master finds incredible or inadequate and who thus seem to flaunt their defiance of properly entered court orders."


Interesting that the court holds the same opinion of these people as I. I especially like the one guy with 4 kids by 3 different women. Nice. What a winner!


The PA (Public Assistance) benefits is not meager at all. In fact the PA gives enough and so very much both to the custodial and to the children that the State keeps the Child Support loot even if the parents (Daddies) pay the Child Support or not. To pay back the states coffers for what is being provide, of course.
So it can not be a meager PA when the State keeps the c/s and does not give it to the families on PA. If the state provides $1800 a month and the CS is $500 a month, the $500 SHOULD go to offset the state's contribution.


I don't know what YOUR definition of meager is, but I guarantee you the people on public assistance are well below the poverty line. Now, if the child support exceeds the states aid for the childs needs, then yes, keeping it is wrong. But, since a typical 2 bedroom apartment costs more than $500 a month alone, plus of course food, clothes, money, medical... very very few CS payments will ever exceed that.



And as the law is now the Child Support does attack the separated parents and so the law will steal the parents' truck and paycheck and the 54" TV too, so your example sounds justified but it is an untrue scenario. And if the Child Support system was eliminated then it is still an unjust scenario that other parents are not as righteous as you pretend to be.



Not if that stuff is in someone elses name they won't, Mommy, girlfriend, etc. Not if you jump state. You aren't really that naive, are you? Here we go with the righteousness again. I don't think I'm any better than any other parent doing their best to support their kids. Let me say it again, I only have a problem with those who willfully dodge. Why would you even argue that? See, that's what really blows my mind. You are advocating for those who choose...CHOOSE to not financially support their children. Yes. I do think I'm a better parent than people who CHOOSE not to support their kids. If that makes me self-righteous, so be it. :rolleyes:



I say it is wrong to make such junk into our laws and to put parents in jail because people like you do not trust thy fellow parents.



Here we go with the 'people like' me again... Trust? It's not a trust issue. If you aren't taking care of your kids, you aren't a 'fellow parent'. That's like calling my neighbor, who is a teacher, my fellow engineer. You have to do it to be it. Having a biological child does not make you a parent. You have to raise it too.

If this is true, why do you insist on continuing to pound the point instead of shutting up?
:howdy: This is a very interesting subject to discuss and to learn more about.

And we are going to completely change the thieving Child Support system and that is exciting too.


And if this is true, why are you not currently holding a SMC Commissioner's seat or Hoyer's HoR seat?
:patriot: I do not want to be a little cheese when I can be the big Governor - duh.



(No reply is necessary because even if you do reply it will be digressing and false.)
:diva: You never were any fun, and you always miss the humor in everything.

This is not just a challenging and cool adventure, but it also a fun and enjoyable trip too.



I am amazed that you are still going, Jimmy. Not in an admiring way, of course, but more of a circus sideshow way. Anyone who does wish to get into it with you need only search on your posts from your previous election runs... it's easy to see the thousands of times you have already been proven incorrect, even a bona fide liar, on just about everything.
:bigwhoop: It is sad that you do not understand what is in front of your eyes.

And I do not know how to cure the blind.

Try the "Tao-Te-Ching" as it tells of winning-by-losing as a great way.


:duel:

Haha! I differ in my opinion and so I am self righteous... LOL. But then, yes, I do think I am a better parent. Because I am parenting. An absentee parent isn't much of a parent, by choice or not. They simply are not doing the job.
:popcorn: My point is that we need to assist the other parents to be better parents and stop the punishing of parents as we do now.

By slandering the parents and degrading the parents and stealing their money then the laws destroy the family unit and it makes the situation far worse then it needs to be.

Help parents and stop punishing parents as that is the key.



How is that an answer to the question?
:whistle: Because the Child Support laws are in themselves wrong and abusive and not some small particulars within the Child Support laws.

Child Support is just stealing, and there is no proper way to steal.



Interesting that the court holds the same opinion of these people as I.
:bigwhoop: The Court is only interpreting the law and it is not equating anything of truth or justice or right from wrong.

The Court itself is corrupted by those ignorant Child Support laws.



I especially like the one guy with 4 kids by 3 different women. Nice. What a winner!
:dye: An alpha-male.



I don't know what YOUR definition of meager is, but I guarantee you the people on public assistance are well below the poverty line. Now, if the child support exceeds the states aid for the childs needs, then yes, keeping it is wrong. But, since a typical 2 bedroom apartment costs more than $500 a month alone, plus of course food, clothes, money, medical... very very few CS payments will ever exceed that.
:popcorn: Public Assistance is given to the custodial and not to the children, just as Child Support is only given to the custodial and not to the children.

So Child Support is not to be equated in the custodial support - but it is being done that way and it distorts the reality.

Child Support is suppose to exceed the custodials' needs because it is said to be for the children and not to support the custodial.

So again the PA programs that takes the c/s shows the Child Support is a big pack of lies.



Not if that stuff is in someone elses name they won't, Mommy, girlfriend, etc. Not if you jump state. You aren't really that naive, are you? Here we go with the righteousness again. I don't think I'm any better than any other parent doing their best to support their kids. Let me say it again, I only have a problem with those who willfully dodge. Why would you even argue that? See, that's what really blows my mind. You are advocating for those who choose...CHOOSE to not financially support their children. Yes. I do think I'm a better parent than people who CHOOSE not to support their kids. If that makes me self-righteous, so be it. :rolleyes:
:popcorn: No, all the children are all fine and provided to overflowing, what I say is that I agree with parents that refuse to pay the thieving Child Support because the Child Support does not support the children and it is immoral stolen money.



Here we go with the 'people like' me again... Trust? It's not a trust issue. If you aren't taking care of your kids, you aren't a 'fellow parent'. That's like calling my neighbor, who is a teacher, my fellow engineer. You have to do it to be it. Having a biological child does not make you a parent. You have to raise it too.
:coffee: You are wrong in this regard, and the 2 biological parents are the child's only parents.

Everything else is untrue.


:duel:

Maybe you can hang out with all the other deadbeats after child support court.. and you can get their vote.
:otter: I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.

It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.

My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.

Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


:duel:

:otter: I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.

It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.

My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.

Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


:duel:
Quoted for the authorities to reference later...:twitch:

You are wrong in this regard, and the 2 biological parents are the child's only parents.

Everything else is untrue.



__________________
SIGNATURE:
JP for Maryland Governor, Link = Webs - Make a free website, get free hosting (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com)

Speaking as a step-mother I don't agree with this. I am more involved in these kids lives than the mother who walked out on them will ever be and she has full access to them whenever she wants (wants being the operative word)!

:otter: I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.

It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.

My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.

Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


:duel:

When exactly will that be?

Quoted for the authorities to reference later...:twitch:

I'm glad you did, I wouldn't put it past that loon to carry out a threat like that. The man is crazy and I am not even worried about his silly ideas any more. He'll never be governor, it's all a big joke to him, that's why he keeps saying no one gets the humor in anything, even he knows it won't happen and it's just a joke.

:otter: I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.

It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.

My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.

Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


:duel:

I wonder if this is public knowledge, I also wonder who his source is. Either a cop or the person planning this extracurricular activity.

Speaking as a step-mother I don't agree with this. I am more involved in these kids lives than the mother who walked out on them will ever be and she has full access to them whenever she wants (wants being the operative word)!
:howdy: Not really, since you have the custody then it is your job to see to it that the children "honor their father and their mother" and so if those kids dishonor their Mom then the sin is on you.

It does not matter if the real Mom wants it or not.



:duel:

I am happy you were arrested. I am happy you spent time in jail. I am happy your life has been ruined by your attitude toward the support of your children. I am saddened that your kids are having so many difficulties in life that I directly attribute to the pos you are.
:getdown: And here is another vivid example; (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070617184822AAKSPvt)

Looking at the old divorce case file of Marcia Clark (O.J. Simpson Trial Prosecutor).

He worked from home as an architect, earning 1/4 ($40,000) what she did ($180,000). He took care of the children at the same time. She thought this was demeaning to her and the children, so she filed for divorce and custody. She hired live in nannies to care for the children during her usual 16-hour days, 6-7 days a week. A part of his child support order was the cost of having the nannies.

After the Simpson Trial started, she filed for an increase in child support because of her increased cost for clothes, shoes, and makeup for appearing on camera.

And, IMO, the BIGGEST point in this account is that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she knew exactly what the Child Support represented and that was that the c/s was to pay for own clothing or anything she wanted and it had nothing to do with supporting her children.

And instead of having the father raising the kids the Court grants custody to Marcia Clark with her "nannies" and the father makes less than a fourth of her big money.

The law is corrupt and the Prosecution Attorney knew it exactly, and if we do not fight this crap now then our children will face it.




:duel:

:howdy: Not really, since you have the custody then it is your job to see to it that the children "honor their father and their mother" and so if those kids dishonor their Mom then the sin is on you.

It does not matter if the real Mom wants it or not.



:duel:

They would like to see her more but this is not what she wants. Do you not realize how hurt children are when their parent wants little or no contact with them?

:getdown: And here is another vivid example; (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070617184822AAKSPvt)

Looking at the old divorce case file of Marcia Clark (O.J. Simpson Trial Prosecutor).

He worked from home as an architect, earning 1/4 ($40,000) what she did ($180,000). He took care of the children at the same time. She thought this was demeaning to her and the children, so she filed for divorce and custody. She hired live in nannies to care for the children during her usual 16-hour days, 6-7 days a week. A part of his child support order was the cost of having the nannies.

After the Simpson Trial started, she filed for an increase in child support because of her increased cost for clothes, shoes, and makeup for appearing on camera.

And, IMO, the BIGGEST point in this account is that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she knew exactly what the Child Support represented and that was that the c/s was to pay for own clothing or anything she wanted and it had nothing to do with supporting her children.

And instead of having the father raising the kids the Court grants custody to Marcia Clark with her "nannies" and the father makes less than a fourth of her big money.

The law is corrupt and the Prosecution Attorney knew it exactly, and if we do not fight this crap now then our children will face it.




:duel:

You are not seriously posting a blog, not backed up by any proof, and trying to pass that off as fact are you? Plus, your facts are absolutely wrong! In 1980 she married Gordon Clark, a computer engineer and an executive in the Church of Scientology. They divorced in 1994. So you are not smart enough to print information that is factual, but you would have us vote for you?

You are not seriously posting a blog, not backed up by any proof, and trying to pass that off as fact are you? Plus, your facts are absolutely wrong! In 1980 she married Gordon Clark, a computer engineer and an executive in the Church of Scientology. They divorced in 1994. So you are not smart enough to print information that is factual, but you would have us vote for you?
:popcorn: If you find some mix-up in the dates or occupation or money level or whatever you are referring to - well all of that is meaningless side-issue gibberish.

The point was and remains that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she sought after an increase in the Child Support to pay for her own new clothes and NOT to provide for the children. And as an Attorney she knew exactly what the Child Support laws were about and not about as this showed in her actions.

And Child Support is that way nationwide and Child Support is still that way today - in that the Child Support is a lying fraud that pretends to help children when it does not.


:duel:

They would like to see her more but this is not what she wants. Do you not realize how hurt children are when their parent wants little or no contact with them?
:popcorn: Some how I do not accept that your interpretation speaks for her perspective or her feelings.

And I say you are stepping over the line is declaring what the children's Mom wants or does not want in their regard.


:duel:

You are a f#cking moron.

The point was and remains that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she sought after an increase in the Child Support to pay for her own new clothes and NOT to provide for the children.

Where are you getting your information?

Where are you getting your information?
:howdy: There is a link in the posting I made and the "blue" text is a quote from the above link, see it there.

But just FYI, here are a couple more links that discuss the same issue;

1) April 1995: The Backlash! Marcia Clark (http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1995/4-apr95/page13.html)

2) Putting Working Moms In Custody | Newsweek | (http://www.newsweek.com/id/109947) = see the last paragraph particularly.

And I was around at the time of the O.J. trial and I very much remember when Ms. prosecution Attorney demanded more Child Support to buy her self some new clothing, so I know of the event myself, and Child Support is a complete fraud.



:drummer:

Spend a day at court when they are hearing child support cases... you will hear how hard it is for hundreds of deadbeat parents... both mothers and fathers. It's' really pathetic. You will see deadbeats who owe anywhere from a couple hundred to over a 100K. You will also see stupid women standing there with their deadbeat boyfriends/husbands. I guess they are proud to be standing by their man. I just think how stupid they are. Especially when they are pregnant.. umm hello the deadbeat doesn't support the kid or kids he already has. Do you think he will support yours? :duh:
:howdy: You physically see "how hard" it is and how the Court claim "100K" and the parents have their families their in support, and even after seeing it with your own eyes you call them "stupid" but it is you that are blind stupid.

Your lies mean nothing in the real life equations except as more ignorant slander spewed out against parents and families that can not afford to pay the Child Support thieves.

The "pathetic" thing is to have eyes that can not see the truth, and ears that do not hear the truth, and a heart that does not understand the truth.
Link. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:13-16&version=KJV)



:drummer:

:howdy: There is a link in the posting I made and the "blue" text is a quote from the above link, see it there.

But just FYI, here are a couple more links that discuss the same issue;

1) April 1995: The Backlash! Marcia Clark (http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1995/4-apr95/page13.html)

2) Putting Working Moms In Custody | Newsweek | (http://www.newsweek.com/id/109947) = see the last paragraph particularly.

And I was around at the time of the O.J. trial and I very much remember when Ms. prosecution Attorney demanded more Child Support to buy her self some new clothing, so I know of the event myself, and Child Support is a complete fraud.



:drummer:

Maybe reading isn't your strong point. She was not asking for MORE child support, but only asking that the original child support amount be reinstated. Also, the distorted information you put up earlier was incorrect. He was not a work from home person. This is obvious slanted dribble was written to confuse the issue. She was asking for him to contribute his fair share. Something you know knothing about, because you chose to go to jail rather than pay yours. How did that work out for your children? Are they well adjusted law abiding people?

Maybe reading isn't your strong point. She was not asking for MORE child support, but only asking that the original child support amount be reinstated. Also, the distorted information you put up earlier was incorrect. He was not a work from home person. This is obvious slanted dribble was written to confuse the issue. She was asking for him to contribute his fair share. Something you know knothing about, because you chose to go to jail rather than pay yours. How did that work out for your children? Are they well adjusted law abiding people?

Isn't his kid a deadbeat who tried to get out of supporting his kid too?

They would like to see her more but this is not what she wants. Do you not realize how hurt children are when their parent wants little or no contact with them?

It's really sad when a parent does that to their child. They don't understand the hurt they are causing. A child should never feel unwanted.

Maybe reading isn't your strong point. She was not asking for MORE child support, but only asking that the original child support amount be reinstated. Also, the distorted information you put up earlier was incorrect. He was not a work from home person. This is obvious slanted dribble was written to confuse the issue. She was asking for him to contribute his fair share. Something you know knothing about, because you chose to go to jail rather than pay yours.
:howdy: The original link does appear to have those mistakes in it but the bottom line that she was an Attorney that knew the law, and she made far more money than the father, and she wanted more Child Support to buy her own clothing, are all true and correct accounts of Marcia the Prosecutor.

And your claim that she was ONLY asking some "fair share" is not true, and the link from Newsweek with particularly that last paragraph is more true than your pretended claim. She wanted an unjust share and nothing was "fair" about it.

As to your last sentence above - I do say that going to jail in defiance of the Child Support thievery is far more morally fitting and proper rather than to pay the c/s thieves.


How did that work out for your children? Are they well adjusted law abiding people?
:whistle: No, it did not work out well with my son, but that had nothing at all to do with Child Support being paid or not.

And my son does not share my opinions and beliefs, but if some future day I hear of him spray painting some Child Support thieves building then I will become very proud indeed.

We parents live on our hopes and dreams.


:drummer:

Isn't his kid a deadbeat who tried to get out of supporting his kid too?

I don't know, but I wouldn't blame the kid. He has never had any sort of man to show him what a man is supposed to be, therefore how could he act accordingly?

So, let me get this straight. Anyone can run for governor.

Doesn't matter if he's an ex con and actually proud of the crime he committed (which was against the state he's running in). A non law abiding person (driving his vehicle illegally with historice tags) who may now be behind bomb threats to the court house and has actually said he would not just make threats, but carry them through. I think this is an insult to the state of Maryland to let a person like this run for governor even though there isn't a snowball's chance he'll actually win.

I don't know, but I wouldn't blame the kid. He has never had any sort of man to show him what a man is supposed to be, therefore how could he act accordingly?

Check out md judiciary... first his son asked for a paternity test.. then he has a couple contempt charges for non support.. because he didn't have a job yet. Yeah he is following in his daddy's footsteps

Oh I forgot, he can also be so disabled that he's already saying that his secretaries and assistants will be doing most of the work for him. Yep, this is the kind of governor Maryland needs.

They can't afford it because they don't get off their lazy asses and get a job. Or if they have a job they are selfish and give nothing for their child.

What doesn't work is the system that allows a parent to get thousands and thousands of dollars behind.

Let me tell you I have had at least 18 court dates in 3 years because I deal with a deadbeat. That's a bunch of crap and a bunch of wasted money for court date after court date.Who's money is being wasted? The system does need to be fixed... it needs to not let these deadbeats play the system and have harsher punishments for deadbeat parents who choose NOT to support their children
:popcorn: Obviously your perspective is in the fact that you want the State to steal more Child Support so that you can get more loot for your self.

You are one that has a baby's Dad that actually shows up to Court, that father is one trying to do right, he is a father trying to work with the law even with a baby's Mom like you demanding more money and to collect it any way that gets your self more of the loot.

If I could talk to that father then I would tell him to follow a better way.

I sincerely believe that it is God that will punish your kind of a brat.

The Child Support reminds me of the old Salem witch trials (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/salem.htm) where a bunch of rotten brats cried and screamed and the law hung people as witches instead of disciplining the bratty children.

Instead of "WITCHES" the brats are now saying "deadbeats" "deadbeats" and most people believe the lies.

And today we know those Salem witch kids were all liars that cried and screamed for their own hateful intentions, just like "LusbyMom" does too.




:drummer:

:popcorn: Obviously your perspective is in the fact that you want the State to steal more Child Support so that you can get more loot for your self.

You are one that has a baby's Dad that actually shows up to Court, that father is one trying to do right, he is a father trying to work with the law even with a baby's Mom like you demanding more money and to collect it any way that gets your self more of the loot.

If I could talk to that father then I would tell him to follow a better way.

I sincerely believe that it is God that will punish your kind of a brat.

The Child Support reminds me of the old Salem witch trials (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/salem.htm) where a bunch of rotten brats cried and screamed and the law hung people as witches instead of disciplining the bratty children.

Instead of "WITCHES" the brats are now saying "deadbeats" "deadbeats" and most people believe the lies.

And today we know those Salem witch kids were all liars that cried and screamed for their own hateful intentions, just like "LusbyMom" does too.




:drummer:

Ahhhhhhhh, so you just admitted it's the right thing to do. You truly are a moron.

that father is one trying to do right, he is a father trying to work with the law

Did you do the right thing? Did you support your child financially at all?

Ahhhhhhhh, so you just admitted it's the right thing to do. You truly are a moron.
:howdy: It is right to trust the Courts and to obey the laws - and I too went to the Child Support Court to do my duty and I do believe most if not all parents do go at least one time.

It is the Court and the law that has betrayed us. They are the ones that have turned into criminal thieves.

My own belief is that parents need to do as I finally did and yes go to Court because it is right, and then tell the Judge or Court master that we refuse to pay the dirty thieves and then rightly go to jail as civil disobedience to fight the law and in an attempt to right the law.


:drummer:

Steal more money? :lmao: The order has been the same for 12 years :duh: I could have had it raised NUMEROUS times but I never have. Believe me the amount he is ordered to pay is small and well below what it should be. I surely am not living off of it and buying stuff for myself.

I can tell you the ONLY reason he shows up is because he is SCARED of jail. So he plays the system and pays a little here and a little there. Just enough to keep him out of jail. I assure you he isn't poor and has plenty of money to pay it. He chooses not to because like you he is ignorant and thinks of it as supporting me when the reality is it doesn't even cover my car payment :lmao:
:whistle: That sounds like he is doing okay than, as I like the parents that show up and play the thieves for fools.

And he surely has no reason at all to give Child Support for your car payments.

When I become Governor than he and you both will see justice - and rightly so.


:duel:

Did you do the right thing? Did you support your child financially at all?
:howdy: My son and his Mom had everything they needed financially to overflowing.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with the Child Support being paid or not.



:duel:

:howdy: My son and his Mom had everything they needed financially to overflowing.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with the Child Support being paid or not.



:duel:

Let me guess, they got help from churches, charities and other family members. Pssssst, JP in case you haven't noticed the economy is crap right now and the churches are pretty much broke and no one really has extra money to give to charities. This actually shouldn't matter since it's the father's responsibility to take care of the kid.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,014,403 in Books

:howdy: My son and his Mom had everything they needed financially to overflowing.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with the Child Support being paid or not.



:duel:

That did not answer the simple question, did you support your child financially?

Let me guess, they got help from churches, charities and other family members. Pssssst, JP in case you haven't noticed the economy is crap right now and the churches are pretty much broke and no one really has extra money to give to charities. This actually shouldn't matter since it's the father's responsibility to take care of the kid.
No she remarried to someone that made a decent living from what I think I understand.
Now, on JPs behalf I will say this.
there does come a point where they are taking enough money to leave the father or who ever pays the support that there is not enough for them to live on.
This part of it does seem wrong when the courts can see that the mother/child are not financially destitute.
But, the father should still have to pay something toward the childs future, college, clothes etc...

I guess you didn't understand. Like you he thinks that he is supporting me. Sorry but no one can live off the measly amount he is ordered to pay. I don't expect nor want him to pay my car payment, I do that fine on my own as I do work more than full time. I do expect him to pay child support which is for the child. :duh:
:howdy: See the father knows the Child Support is just paying you off and it is not supporting the children.

And the children already have all of their needs filled completely.

But your car payment is not fulfilled and you saying the Child Support is for the children is not true.

You live in lies and it is God that will punish your kind.



:killingme You will never become Governor


:getdown: You better hope and pray that I do, because I will remove your guilt even though you have not the integrity to do it for your self.



:drummer:

That did not answer the simple question, did you support your child financially?
:popcorn: It really is not a simple question, as it is twisted and perverted where you want to mislead things.

And the Child Support issue is not about me personally or about my own case as you and others try to make it.

But just out of my own regard (and not yours) I answer and say my "child" was indeed overwhelmingly financially supported and some of the financing came from me and some from others.

I am completely content with my own participation in that financial regard, and beyond that it really is no one else's business.




:patriot:

:popcorn: It really is not a simple question, as it is twisted and perverted where you want to mislead things.

And the Child Support issue is not about me personally or about my own case as you and others try to make it.

But just out of my own regard (and not yours) I answer and say my "child" was indeed overwhelmingly financially supported and some of the financing came from me and some from others.

I am completely content with my own participation in that financial regard, and beyond that it really is no one else's business.




:patriot:

I didn't see where it was twisted or perverted, it was a simple question. When anything concerning you're personal issues come up, then you always say it's not about you. You should just stop wasting time and get a job.

:howdy: See the father knows the Child Support is just paying you off and it is not supporting the children.

And the children already have all of their needs filled completely.

But your car payment is not fulfilled and you saying the Child Support is for the children is not true.

You live in lies and it is God that will punish your kind.


:getdown: You better hope and pray that I do, because I will remove your guilt even though you have not the integrity to do it for your self.



:drummer:

Say what you will because I am not posting all my personal info on the internet. I know the truth. I pay my car payment and I support my child. Unlike a deadbeat I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what it takes. I go without before my child ever will.

God won't punish me I am an atheist :diva:

Say what you will because I am not posting all my personal info on the internet. I know the truth. I pay my car payment and I support my child. Unlike a deadbeat I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what it takes. I go without before my child ever will.

God won't punish me I am an atheist :diva:
:jameo: going to hell, going to hell going to hell :jameo:

:popcorn: Some how I do not accept that your interpretation speaks for her perspective or her feelings.

And I say you are stepping over the line is declaring what the children's Mom wants or does not want in their regard.


:duel:

I have overstepped nothing. We have the children with us and she is 2 minutes down the road. All she has to do is call the kids and they are available to her when she follows thru on what she says (unless they have a school activity or have plans with a friend) and she knows that. She walked out 4 years ago and left her children hurt and confused. Those are the facts.

Additionally I was referring to how hurt my own children were when their father ignored them so now try telling me I don't know about that situation either.

Say what you will because I am not posting all my personal info on the internet. I know the truth. I pay my car payment and I support my child. Unlike a deadbeat I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what it takes. I go without before my child ever will.
:whistle: That is big talk except you are not going without anything.

In fact you expect your children's Dad to go without just to give your self some extra cash and car payments and you do not even need the Child support money but you demand it anyway.

And what the children really need is their parents in a marriage union and not Mommy pretending to be single and shirking her duties to her husband.



God won't punish me I am an atheist :diva:
:popcorn: I do believe you are an atheist because any moral system would denounce you.

And God is not some thing where we can deny it and it goes away.

Just like denying stealing and stolen money does not make it clean or right.

And surely you must be raising the children to be heathen Atheist too, because otherwise the kiddies will see Mommy for what Mommy does. Of course my own belief is that the children always see the truth whether the parents live or teach them the truth or not.

So now are you teaching the children to get married or to just have babies?

And are you telling the boy to watch out for girls like his Mommy?

And are you telling the girl to find a rich baby-daddy?

Since being an Atheist you do not have to follow the old rules of right and wrong.



:duel:

:jameo: going to hell, going to hell going to hell :jameo:
:whistle: No, there is no HELL and I surely do not mean any punishment after death -no.

God punishes people here and now as we each "reap what we sow".

This world and this life is quite cruel enough without having a Hell after death.

And in the end everyone gets saved as Jesus paid the price for everyone.



:duel:

I have overstepped nothing. We have the children with us and she is 2 minutes down the road. All she has to do is call the kids and they are available to her when she follows thru on what she says (unless they have a school activity or have plans with a friend) and she knows that. She walked out 4 years ago and left her children hurt and confused. Those are the facts.

Additionally I was referring to how hurt my own children were when their father ignored them so now try telling me I don't know about that situation either.
:popcorn: What I am saying is that it is a part of the job of having "custody" to see to it that the children honor, respect, communicate and visit with their separated parent(s).

If the step children fail in this to their Mom then it is your (the custodial) fault and it is your sin.

And if your own children fail in that to their separated father then you are at fault and you failed to provide the custody correctly and again it is a sin of your own.



:duel:

What if a child's father has dutifully paid child support for a few years but then decides to live with another woman and support her and her child instead of his own.

:popcorn:

What if a child's father has dutifully paid child support for a few years but then decides to live with another woman and support her and her child instead of his own.

:popcorn:

:lmao: That cracks me up! Same situation here and he has even told the judge that he has stepkids to support and that's why he has no money.

:whistle: That is big talk except you are not going without anything.Really? And you know this how? Because I know that I don't do for myself so that I can give my children everything they need. It isn't cheap to raise a child. On top of the everyday expenses then you add in all the extras like sports and braces and clothes they outgrow constantly, the list is endless

In fact you expect your children's Dad to go without just to give your self some extra cash and car payments and you do not even need the Child support money but you demand it anyway.
I assure you he doesn't go without anything. He is all about himself and his new family. Extra cash? When you have kids their is no extra cash. Did you miss the part where I said I work MORE THAN FULLTIME. I support myself and my child 100%


And what the children really need is their parents in a marriage union and not Mommy pretending to be single and shirking her duties to her husband.
I don't pretend to be single you moron I am actually married. I am just not married to my child's father anymore. He is the one shirking his duties to my child.


:popcorn: I do believe you are an atheist because any moral system would denounce you.

And God is not some thing where we can deny it and it goes away.
You can't deny something that doesn't exist :duh:


Just like denying stealing and stolen money does not make it clean or right.

And surely you must be raising the children to be heathen Atheist too, because otherwise the kiddies will see Mommy for what Mommy does. Of course my own belief is that the children always see the truth whether the parents live or teach them the truth or not.
You are right children always see the truth and my child will know the truth and will always know who was the parent who was always there and who they could always depend on. My child will see who choose not to be around. Just because parents are divorced does not mean that they can't both parent.


So now are you teaching the children to get married or to just have babies?

And are you telling the boy to watch out for girls like his Mommy?

And are you telling the girl to find a rich baby-daddy?

:lol: Why would I teach them to just have babies? My children will be taught to take care of their own. Not shirk their responsibilities

Since being an Atheist you do not have to follow the old rules of right and wrong.
I don't need a bible to tell me what is right or what is wrong. It is right to take care of your child. PERIOD.


:duel:

I can't wait to vote for your opponent :)

:popcorn: What I am saying is that it is a part of the job of having "custody" to see to it that the children honor, respect, communicate and visit with their separated parent(s).

If the step children fail in this to their Mom then it is your (the custodial) fault and it is your sin.

And if your own children fail in that to their separated father then you are at fault and you failed to provide the custody correctly and again it is a sin of your own.



:duel:

You are putting the responsibilty of visitation on the child and the CP??? What happens when you have a parent that could care less about picking up their kid and spending time with them? What happens when the NCP is wrapped up in their own life and doesn't want to be bothered with the kid? You can teach your child to respect their parent but you can't make their parent respect them.

You are putting the responsibilty of visitation on the child and the CP??? What happens when you have a parent that could care less about picking up their kid and spending time with them? What happens when the NCP is wrapped up in their own life and doesn't want to be bothered with the kid? You can teach your child to respect their parent but you can't make their parent respect them.

There is also much to be said for respecting the title but not how the person is acting! I would say JCP needs to worry about his own shortcomings and not those of others!

What if a child's father has dutifully paid child support for a few years but then decides to live with another woman and support her and her child instead of his own.

:popcorn:
:getdown: What that really means is the father has two wives.

And just because the law grants a legal divorce does not make it true.

The parents are still married and just pretending their not married based on our immoral laws.

The 2 parents are legally divorced but still morally married, and just living in lies.

And I would object to the father (or mother) paying the Child Support because it is morally wrong to pay a thief. Of course if the law is physically stealing the money as the Child Support system does then that is not willingly paying the thieves as that is just getting legally robbed.

So if the parent (Mom or Dad) goes live with another family then wherever they happen to be surely is their first and foremost duty.

And the other children already have everything they need to overflowing so there is no real demand or obligation to give them any more or any extras unless one wants to do so.


:duel:

You are putting the responsibility of visitation on the child and the CP???
:popcorn: Yes, that is a part of the job of custody to give the children all that the children need and the biggest need of any child is to preserve their connection to their separated parent.

And I do know that most custodials fail in this regard and the sin belongs to those custodials.



What happens when you have a parent that could care less about picking up their kid and spending time with them? What happens when the NCP is wrapped up in their own life and doesn't want to be bothered with the kid?
:whistle: That happens ONLY because of the uncooperative or incompetent custodials and it is always wrong to blame it on the separated parents.

That slander is just to falsely justify the custodial's wrongdoing.

The separated parents are not to be "bothered" by their own kids and that not-bothering is the job of the custodial. The custodial is to find the right way of making it work or else it is a failure of custody.



You can teach your child to respect their parent but you can't make their parent respect them.
:howdy: The children must be taught to do far more than just respect their parents, and it is the job of custody to raise the children correctly.

And it was wrong to be giving the custody to parents that shirk the duties of the job.



:duel:

:popcorn: Yes, that is a part of the job of custody to give the children all that the children need and the biggest need of any child is to preserve their connection to their separated parent.

And I do know that most custodials fail in this regard and the sin belongs to those custodials.


:whistle: That happens ONLY because of the uncooperative or incompetent custodials and it is always wrong to blame it on the separated parents.

That slander is just to falsely justify the custodial's wrongdoing.

The separated parents are not to be "bothered" by their own kids and that not-bothering is the job of the custodial. The custodial is to find the right way of making it work or else it is a failure of custody.


:howdy: The children must be taught to do far more than just respect their parents, and it is the job of custody to raise the children correctly.

And it was wrong to be giving the custody to parents that shirk the duties of the job.



:duel:
:blahblah:

A NCP is busy... raising another family... partying... working or whatever and doesn't want to see their children and that is the CP's fault? I know alot of divorced couples.. and many of them can work together for their children. It is sad that not all parents can do that. But some parents just don't care enough. The end result is an innocent child is hurt by a worthless parent and no child deserves that. The ONLY person you can blame is the parent who has made no effort to be a part of their child's life. We are each responsible for our own actions.

You truly are insane and it really disgusts me that someone like you can even run for office.

You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper. Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t

You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper. Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t

:faint:

I am :roflmao:

You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper. Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t

:jet:

he is pretty useless isn't he

That happens ONLY because of the uncooperative or incompetent custodials and it is always wrong to blame it on the separated parents.So you are, in effect, blaming your ex-wife for not allowing (or forcing) little Jimmy to see you when you ran away out West somewhere. How was she supposed to track you down when you were leading a vagabond life of traveling, partying and dating various women? And what kind of environment would that have exposed little Jimmy to if he had been there?

I'm sure you'll come up with some way to excuse those things, or even to explain how having little Jimmy see his daddy living like a reckless gigolo would have been positive for him.

As a reminder of things you have said, Jimmy, here is a little gem (http://forums.somd.com/2165371-post76.html) you posted a couple years back (probably during your first failed campaign run): When I first separated I paid all the bills as she stayed in our house and that was rediculous as it was like I just was not home, so then I stopped and she would not file for divorce or for child support so again it was unacceptable, then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so I deserted to let them figure it out.I know other good ones are out there, but I don't care to search for a long time to find them. I don't think they're that necessary anyhow.

A NCP is busy... raising another family... partying... working or whatever and doesn't want to see their children and that is the CP's fault? I know alot of divorced couples.. and many of them can work together for their children. It is sad that not all parents can do that. But some parents just don't care enough. The end result is an innocent child is hurt by a worthless parent and no child deserves that. The ONLY person you can blame is the parent who has made no effort to be a part of their child's life. We are each responsible for our own actions.
:howdy: My point remains true that the job of custody includes providing healthy interaction of the children with their separated parent(s), and if it is not completed then it is the failure of the custodial.

Just like the custodial is to get the children through High School and even into College and if the child does not graduate High School then the custodial has failed in that regard.

There are many reasons why a child might not get a High School diploma or why the child might not go through college but it is still a part of the job of providing custody and the child coming up short means the custody provider failed in their duty.

So blaming it on the separated parent is a cop-out and it is always the custodial that must do the job as custody or they have no business having the custody in the first place.


:duel:

As a reminder of things you have said, Jimmy, here is a little gem (http://forums.somd.com/2165371-post76.html) you posted a couple years back (probably during your first failed campaign run): I know other good ones are out there, but I don't care to search for a long time to find them. I don't think they're that necessary anyhow.
:getdown: To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.

No one ever "deserted" me in such a well-off condition.



:duel:

:getdown: To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.

No one ever "deserted" me in such a well-off condition.



:duel:

From the sound of things they didn'ty have to... seems you left of your own free will.

Here's one for the CP responsibilities issue....

What if the NCP was molesting the child and thus the reason for the CP having custody... Is the CP still supposed to force visitation upon the child?

What if the NCP is guilty of habitual spousal battery / child abuse? Is child abuse a form of 'parenting' and thus nobody elses business in your mind?

Not every divorce / seperation is a case of simple "I/we don't wish to be together anymore". Sometimes the NCP is a bonafide danger to the child, emotionally and/or physically.

Where do you draw the 'honor they mother/father' line, or do you draw a line at all?

To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.See, this is the only positive gleaned from communicating with you, that the more you put your views out there the more people can see how warped you are. That you wish to bring your ideas of deserting children (not to mention custodial parents) to the State House could potentially be horrifying - if anyone (besides you) thought there was the slightest chance you'd win.

What if the NCP is guilty of habitual spousal battery / child abuse? Is child abuse a form of 'parenting' and thus nobody elses business in your mind?That is what I was touching on in #163, where, to use his line of 'thought', little Jimmy would have been forced to visit big Jimmy during his drunken party days. He doesn't seem to have an answer for me, but perhaps he will for you.

:howdy: My point remains true that the job of custody includes providing healthy interaction of the children with their separated parent(s), and if it is not completed then it is the failure of the custodial.The non-custodial has no responsibility to actually be there?Just like the custodial is to get the children through High School and even into College and if the child does not graduate High School then the custodial has failed in that regard. This implies the non-custodial has no impact on the child's life. Is that what you think?There are many reasons why a child might not get a High School diploma or why the child might not go through college but it is still a part of the job of providing custody and the child coming up short means the custody provider failed in their duty.

So blaming it on the separated parent is a cop-out and it is always the custodial that must do the job as custody or they have no business having the custody in the first place.What role does the NCP have in the child's life, then?

To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.

No one ever "deserted" me in such a well-off condition.So, a few bills paid can replace you as a parent?

From the sound of things they didn'ty have to... seems you left of your own free will.
:howdy: It is always far more complicated then things sound.

Like the old saying: Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose ...



Here's one for the CP responsibilities issue....

What if the NCP was molesting the child and thus the reason for the CP having custody... Is the CP still supposed to force visitation upon the child?
:popcorn: First, it is very rare for a parent to molest their own children excluding severe mental illness which is a different type of case. Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.

Blaming a parent is common but it is usually the step-parents that do it. And it is common for a molester to be called the child's parent when it is not true.

So in the few cases where there is verified molestation (not just slander) then the children still need to know who their parents are and what happened and know how to communicate with the parent and need to be provided a safe and healthy way of doing so.

And I never said about "forcing" visitations even in the best of situations or divorces. The custodial is to implement the visitation or communications without force or else it is a failure of custody.



What if the NCP is guilty of habitual spousal battery / child abuse? Is child abuse a form of 'parenting' and thus nobody else's business in your mind?
:whistle: Of course any case of physical violence must be dealt with differently then just a divorce or separation.

And physical violence is an actual crime which requires due process of law.

And if a violent parent (being Mom or Dad) does leave the mate, then there is no logic in having the law chase down that violent parent and start stealing the parent's money as Child Support and denying visitation and expecting a happy ending - not by my logic.



Not every divorce / seperation is a case of simple "I/we don't wish to be together anymore". Sometimes the NCP is a bonafide danger to the child, emotionally and/or physically.
:howdy: Like I said above - it is very rare that a real parent is a danger to their own children.

We see reports of parents killing themselves and their ex and their children but that is all reported after the law has already made it known that the law provides easy divorces and kidnapping type of custody orders and debilitating Child Support demands.

It is like pocking a trapped animal with a stick and then accusing the animal of being "mad" and dangerous.

If we want to be true then we must look at the provocations against parents.



Where do you draw the 'honor they mother/father' line, or do you draw a line at all?
:howdy: There is no line in "honor", and even if the parent is un-liked or separated or even dead then the children still have a duty to their real parents and any custodial that does not honor that has failed in properly providing the custody.

The ongoing idea that the custodial can live off of money stolen from the separated parent and then slander the separated parent with their name calling and their lies is just raising the children in an unhealthy and unproductive way.

In a case like "LusbyMom" where she is raising the children as Godless Heathens and alienated their Dad and shirking her duty and trying to get their Dad put into jail, and on and on for over 12 years, then that kind of "custody" was a mistake to put onto the children.

It is our twisted and misguided laws that empower the break-up of families.



:duel:

JP you are such a joke, stay off the internet and get a job. You are such a waste to society.

So, a few bills paid can replace you as a parent?
:howdy: My old buddy-pal T_p, see how all goes right back as if the last 2 years were nothing as time plays tricks on humanity?

As to your question above - of course bills paid NEVER never replaces a parent, and that is my own sincere objection to the thieving Child Support.

There is a false claim that a separated parent must pay the Child Support cash as if that were their parental duty and it is not.

It is the thieves of Child Support that give the false pretense that cash money replaces the parents and I want us all to defy that lie.


:duel:

:howdy: My old buddy-pal T_p, see how all goes right back as if the last 2 years were nothing as time plays tricks on humanity?

As to your question above - of course bills paid NEVER never replaces a parent, and that is my own sincere objection to the thieving Child Support.

There is a false claim that a separated parent must pay the Child Support cash as if that were their parental duty and it is not.

It is the thieves of Child Support that give the false pretense that cash money replaces the parents and I want us all to defy that lie.


:duel:

Sounds like you need another drink, your big red nose is a dead give away

:howdy:
: First, it is very rare for a parent to molest their own children excluding severe mental illness which is a different type of case. Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.

It's rare??? Where did you get that info?
Blaming a parent is common but it is usually the step-parents that do it. And it is common for a molester to be called the child's parent when it is not true.

So in the few cases where there is verified molestation (not just slander) then the children still need to know who their parents are and what happened and know how to communicate with the parent and need to be provided a safe and healthy way of doing so.

And I never said about "forcing" visitations even in the best of situations or divorces. The custodial is to implement the visitation or communications without force or else it is a failure of custody.


:whistle: Of course any case of physical violence must be dealt with differently then just a divorce or separation.

And physical violence is an actual crime which requires due process of law.

And if a violent parent (being Mom or Dad) does leave the mate, then there is no logic in having the law chase down that violent parent and start stealing the parent's money as Child Support and denying visitation and expecting a happy ending - not by my logic.


:howdy: Like I said above - it is very rare that a real parent is a danger to their own children.

We see reports of parents killing themselves and their ex and their children but that is all reported after the law has already made it known that the law provides easy divorces and kidnapping type of custody orders and debilitating Child Support demands.

It is like pocking a trapped animal with a stick and then accusing the animal of being "mad" and dangerous.

If we want to be true then we must look at the provocations against parents.


:howdy: There is no line in "honor", and even if the parent is un-liked or separated or even dead then the children still have a duty to their real parents and any custodial that does not honor that has failed in properly providing the custody.

The children have a duty to their parents but a NCP doesn't have a duty to support that child? :killingme

The ongoing idea that the custodial can live off of money stolen from the separated parent and then slander the separated parent with their name calling and their lies is just raising the children in an unhealthy and unproductive way.

In a case like "LusbyMom" where she is raising the children as Godless Heathens and alienated their Dad and shirking her duty and trying to get their Dad put into jail, and on and on for over 12 years, then that kind of "custody" was a mistake to put onto the children.

How exactly have I alienated the father? Even thought he is a deadbeat he still gets his visitation. And I would like to know where I said that I have been trying to get him put in jail over and over for 12 years. He paid his child support each and every month until he remarried a few years ago. That is when he decided he shouldn't pay child support anymore and he needed to support his stepchildren instead. Godless heathens? :killingme My morals are 100 times better than yours will ever be. YOU are the one who walked out on your child. YOU are the one who thinks everyone owes the NCP something. You are the one who should be a looney bin.

It is our twisted and misguided laws that empower the break-up of families.



:duel:

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.I suspect that some of the folks who happen to be step-parents and have previously given up trying to talk civilly with you are about to come back and kick your ass again. :lol:

So in the few cases where there is verified molestation (not just slander) then the children still need to know who their parents are and what happened and know how to communicate with the parent and need to be provided a safe and healthy way of doing so.So even when the parent is a proven danger to their child, they should retain unfettered visitation rights... in a "healthy" way. I guess that question asking if you draw a line has been answered; the NCP could be the most vile, unscrupulous piece of trash to walk the earth and you would still want them to have access to their child.

I hope Jimmy Jr. does not allow his daughter to visit you, because you are a danger to ALL children.

And I never said about "forcing" visitations even in the best of situations or divorces. The custodial is to implement the visitation or communications without force or else it is a failure of custody.I often think the definitions you have for words are not the same as everyone else; this is one of those times. For there is no other way to label what you have previously described as "providing visitation" other than "forcing".

I do wonder why you can not admit that you are saying your ex-wife is to blame for not forcing Jimmy Jr. to see you when you ran out West. You also did not answer whether you think that would have been a positive environment for little Jimmy to be in - partying, drinking, different women coming around - when you have admitted to now regretting doing some of those things. Maybe that's why you won't answer, eh. :lol:

First, it is very rare for a parent to molest their own children excluding severe mental illness which is a different type of case. Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.

Blaming a parent is common but it is usually the step-parents that do it. And it is common for a molester to be called the child's parent when it is not true.



Seriously? Wow, get an education...


Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.[11] Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.[11][12][16] Most offenders who abuse pre-pubescent children are pedophiles,[17][18] however a small percentage do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.[19]



Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse)

Completed cited with reliable sources by the way.

Apaprently the instances of abuse by step parents are too few to mention... Not the other way around, as you claim. You have a funny definition of 'rare'.

I'm not responding to the rest... it's obvious you just make up 'facts' as you see fit.

I guarantee that if all voters read his threads and postings, JP would not get one vote.

it's obvious you just make up 'facts' as you see fit.Exactly. He has had countless links and external resources provided to him, all proving him wrong, but he persists because he believes his own experiences and perception foremost. That, in turn, makes him a bold-faced liar because he knows the facts oppose him.

As I said before, he will not shut up, but at least potential voters can see his lunacy and know to steer clear of him.

Seriously? Wow, get an education...

Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse)

Completed cited with reliable sources by the way.

Apaprently the instances of abuse by step parents are too few to mention... Not the other way around, as you claim. You have a funny definition of 'rare'.

I'm not responding to the rest... it's obvious you just make up 'facts' as you see fit.
:popcorn: Of course I stick to what I said as being accurate and true.

Where your link says fathers it fails to tell that it means step-fathers, and step-mothers and step-brothers and sisters are the ones that do the vast majority of sexual abuse.

It is very unusual and rare for a natural relative to do a sexual molestation while it is very common and widespread for step-relatives to do the dirty hateful stuff.

And it needs to be added that often the children do not know it is a step-parent because the children are usually lied to about the step-parent's true identity.

Children are told that this is your Daddy now or this is your Mommy when it is a lie, so the children grow up in deceptions.


:duel:

:popcorn: Of course I stick to what I said as being accurate and true.

Where your link says fathers it fails to tell that it means step-fathers, and step-mothers and step-brothers and sisters are the ones that do the vast majority of sexual abuse.

It is very unusual and rare for a natural relative to do a sexual molestation while it is very common and widespread for step-relatives to do the dirty hateful stuff.

And it needs to be added that often the children do not know it is a step-parent because the children are usually lied to about the step-parent's true identity.

Children are told that this is your Daddy now or this is your Mommy when it is a lie, so the children grow up in deceptions.


:duel:

And you grew up on another planet if you think any of what you just said was correct.

:popcorn: Of course I stick to what I said as being accurate and true.

Where your link says fathers it fails to tell that it means step-fathers, and step-mothers and step-brothers and sisters are the ones that do the vast majority of sexual abuse.

It is very unusual and rare for a natural relative to do a sexual molestation while it is very common and widespread for step-relatives to do the dirty hateful stuff.

And it needs to be added that often the children do not know it is a step-parent because the children are usually lied to about the step-parent's true identity.

Children are told that this is your Daddy now or this is your Mommy when it is a lie, so the children grow up in deceptions.


:duel:

Back it up. Do you know what a citation is? Cite your sources. If you look at the citations and actually read the cited articles in the link I posted, you will see that when they say 'relatives' they mean just that. Step parents fall under 'friends of the family'. Besides, they also allude to incest. A step parent molesting a stepchild is not by definition 'incestuous', because there is no 'blood' relation.

If you want to make up stuff to satisfy your own need to avoid reality and make excuses and feel better about your past behavior, feel free to do so. But to think that we will all by into your fantasy world just because you say so is ludicrous. Nobody is going to accept anything as fact just because you say it.

Back up your claims with reliable source material if you want to be taken seriously.

I think its time to stop picking on JPC, and see if we can actually help him.
I think I found the cause of his delusions. See, He honestly feels that what he types is correct.
Symptoms of Wet Brain Syndrome

Wet Brain Syndrome is characterized by many different neurological and psychiatric symptoms. Two of the main symptoms, which are also seen in alcohol intoxication, are confusion and ataxia. This is why the disease is sometime difficult to diagnose in severe alcoholics. Many symptoms of Wet Brain Syndrome involve the eye including nystagmus (a lateral tremor of the eye), ophthalmoplegia (paralysis of the eye muscles), anisocoria (unequal pupil size) and sluggish pupil reflexes (the eyes only slowly react to light). Korsakoff's psychosis is characterized by amnesia, hallucination and confabulations. A confabulation is a fascinating psychiatric symptom in which people incorporate a fantasy or a figment of their imagination into their working memory. They are also extremely suggestible. An example of a confabulation is when a doctor, who has only just met a patient with Wet Brain Syndrome can easily convince him that they are long time acquaintances. The patient then begins to confabulate other instances in which the two have interacted.

I think its time to stop picking on JPC, and see if we can actually help him.
I think I found the cause of his delusions. See, He honestly feels that what he types is correct.

I think you solved it.

I think I found the cause of his delusions. See, He honestly feels that what he types is correct.That seems plausible... until the last bit where it mentions being suggestible; JPC is one of the most closed-minded, resistant individuals with whom I have ever interacted.

You can attempt to help him all you like, but he (again) resists because he was tested for mental illness 20-something years ago and thinks that must mean he is still okay.

I know some of you were not here before when JPC was here so you don't know what an idiot you're dealing with and how useless it is to post to his thread. Those of you that were here, I have no simpathy for you because you already know he's an idiot and choose to talk to him anyway. :lol:

P.S. The "ignore" button works well.

Crazy people don't realize that they're crazy. That's why they're...crazy.

And frankly, you guys are crazy to want to keep debating with the crazy person.

I suspect that some of the folks who happen to be step-parents and have previously given up trying to talk civilly with you are about to come back and kick your ass again. :lol:

So even when the parent is a proven danger to their child, they should retain unfettered visitation rights... in a "healthy" way. I guess that question asking if you draw a line has been answered; the NCP could be the most vile, unscrupulous piece of trash to walk the earth and you would still want them to have access to their child.

I hope Jimmy Jr. does not allow his daughter to visit you, because you are a danger to ALL children.

I often think the definitions you have for words are not the same as everyone else; this is one of those times. For there is no other way to label what you have previously described as "providing visitation" other than "forcing".

I do wonder why you can not admit that you are saying your ex-wife is to blame for not forcing Jimmy Jr. to see you when you ran out West. You also did not answer whether you think that would have been a positive environment for little Jimmy to be in - partying, drinking, different women coming around - when you have admitted to now regretting doing some of those things. Maybe that's why you won't answer, eh. :lol:

Isn't he just beyond belief? Now with the movie "The Stepfather" out there will be no stopping him! Speaking as a step-parent, yeah. I'd like to kick his butt - maybe it would shake his brains into place!

Crazy people don't realize that they're crazy. That's why they're...crazy.

And frankly, you guys are crazy to want to keep debating with the crazy person.
:howdy: Please, you put me on a spot so I have to say it,

that even if or or the others were or are "crazy" or mentally ill, then they can still be right and correct in their postings or in my postings.

Being "crazy" or mentally ill does not make the person wrong or inaccurate or undebatable.

A mentally ill or crazy person can be right, can be correct and accurate, and it is a bias position to discard a message just because of some prejudice against the messenger.

So even if I am "crazy" then my message is still correct and true, and others here are not "crazy" when they simply do not know the truth as I do.



:drummer:

And you grew up on another planet if you think any of what you just said was correct.
:howdy: When a step-parent tells the child that they are the child's "Mom" or their "Dad" when they are not - then that is a lie and then the children grow up under a deception.

Maybe when the commandment was written to say; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, then it needed to say do not lie to children either.



:drummer:

:howdy: When a step-parent tells the child that they are the child's "Mom" or their "Dad" when they are not - then that is a lie and then the children grow up under a deception.

Maybe when the commandment was written to say; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, then it needed to say do not lie to children either.



:drummer:
Being a Mom or Dad is a Hell of a lot more then being then being the biological unit. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

that even if or or the others were or are "crazy" or mentally ill, then they can still be right and correct in their postings or in my postings.

Being "crazy" or mentally ill does not make the person wrong or inaccurate or undebatable.

A mentally ill or crazy person can be right, can be correct and accurate, and it is a bias position to discard a message just because of some prejudice against the messenger.

I disagree.

I disagree.
:killingme .... :howdy: .. Okay that was really really funny.

So you must be one of those normal people.

I am sticking with the crazies.



:drummer:

:killingme .... :howdy: .. Okay that was really really funny.

So you must be one of those normal people.

I am sticking with the crazies.



:drummer:

Rock on with your bad self. :larry:

As to your question above - of course bills paid NEVER never replaces a parent,You know a parent is allowed to be around his/her child regardless of how much child support they pay, right? So, deserting your child and saying it was good because you gave some stuff is kinda stupid, right?


BTW, you missed all the below in your answer::howdy: My point remains true that the job of custody includes providing healthy interaction of the children with their separated parent(s), and if it is not completed then it is the failure of the custodial.The non-custodial has no responsibility to actually be there?Just like the custodial is to get the children through High School and even into College and if the child does not graduate High School then the custodial has failed in that regard. This implies the non-custodial has no impact on the child's life. Is that what you think?There are many reasons why a child might not get a High School diploma or why the child might not go through college but it is still a part of the job of providing custody and the child coming up short means the custody provider failed in their duty.

So blaming it on the separated parent is a cop-out and it is always the custodial that must do the job as custody or they have no business having the custody in the first place.What role does the NCP have in the child's life, then?

The non-custodial has no responsibility to actually be there?

This implies the non-custodial has no impact on the child's life. Is that what you think?

What role does the NCP have in the child's life, then?
:eyebrow: My position simply must be based on the MD Law and not on any kind of semantics.

So the separated parents do have huge effects on the children, but when the law orders one parent to have "custody" then that legally excludes the other parent as the NCP.

The very name itself of "Non Custodial Parent" in itself legally excludes the parent and legally divides the family unit.

I try never to use that belligerent terminology as I call the parents as "separated parents" because they are legally separated from their children.

So legally a "NCP" has no parental rights at all.



:cartwheel

:howdy: When a step-parent tells the child that they are the child's "Mom" or their "Dad" when they are not - then that is a lie and then the children grow up under a deception.

Maybe when the commandment was written to say; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, then it needed to say do not lie to children either.



:drummer:

Blood doesn't necessarily make you a mom or a dad... You might technically be one but it doesn't make you one. A deadbeat doesn't deserve the title of mom or dad. And a deadbeat can mean many things... a parent could support their child financially and do nothing else for them.. they are still a deadbeat. A parent who doesn't do a thing financially or anything else is a deadbeat. A parent who is struggling to support the child but is there for everything isn't a deadbeat.. at least he/she is making an effort.

The children can know who their "real" parent is.. but may feel closer to the person who is always there for them in every way a parent should be.

The very name itself of "Non Custodial Parent" in itself legally excludes the parent and legally divides the family unit.

I try never to use that belligerent terminology as I call the parents as "separated parents" because they are legally separated from their children.

So legally a "NCP" has no parental rights at all.Posts like this lead one to believe that even you do not know what your position is.

On one hand you claim the NCP has no rights whatsoever because the law says so. On the other you say you use your own terminology, and we know you don't respect the divorce and separation laws, so the legal bits should mean nothing to you.

Even figuring in mental illness, I don't see how you reconcile such incongruities; everything you say is so disjointed it's really quite astounding.

:eyebrow: My position simply must be based on the MD Law and not on any kind of semantics.

So the separated parents do have huge effects on the children, but when the law orders one parent to have "custody" then that legally excludes the other parent as the NCP.

The very name itself of "Non Custodial Parent" in itself legally excludes the parent and legally divides the family unit.

I try never to use that belligerent terminology as I call the parents as "separated parents" because they are legally separated from their children.

So legally a "NCP" has no parental rights at all.

This is what you people are debating with. Are you really that desperate to appear smart?

Posts like this lead one to believe that even you do not know what your position is.

On one hand you claim the NCP has no rights whatsoever because the law says so. On the other you say you use your own terminology, and we know you don't respect the divorce and separation laws, so the legal bits should mean nothing to you.

Even figuring in mental illness, I don't see how you reconcile such incongruities; everything you say is so disjointed it's really quite astounding.
:howdy: From my own perspective then I say that was one of my most inspired posting of all times, and from now on it is going to be my mantra (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mantra) on the custody issue and I did not have a truly hard position on this before.

And I owe my thanks for it to T_p because I had neglected his questions but he pushed the issue and then it came out.

Others might not see the political strength of the position but I do - thank God.

This is one of those times where this Forum discussions have truly assisted me in my platform.

And yes of course I despise those "legal bits" but I must go through the legalities in my presentations and in my legal arguments.

So that is why I am NOT "reconciling such incongruities" as I am using one to undermine the other.

What "custody" and "non-custody" does is legally deny the parental rights from the separated parents.

Child Support steals the money while custody steals the children.



:drummer:

:howdy: From my own perspective then I say that was one of my most inspired posting of all times, and from now on it is going to be my mantra (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mantra) on the custody issue and I did not have a truly hard position on this before.

And I owe my thanks for it to T_p because I had neglected his questions but he pushed the issue and then it came out.

Others might not see the political strength of the position but I do - thank God.

This is one of those times where this Forum discussions have truly assisted me in my platform.

And yes of course I despise those "legal bits" but I must go through the legalities in my presentations and in my legal arguments.

So that is why I am NOT "reconciling such incongruities" as I am using one to undermine the other.

What "custody" and "non-custody" does is legally deny the parental rights from the separated parents.

Child Support steals the money while custody steals the children.



:drummer:
I think that's wonderful and can't wait to hear it in your campaign speeches. :yay:

This is what you people are debating with.Who is debating him? I am one who has tried to talk reason into him and realized it as a futile endeavor; now it's more about making sure everyone else realizes his craziness.

If he is good for anything, he does provide a break from the typical O-bashing going on in the 'real' political threads. Those discussions may be more intelligent, but they're often no less inane.

And I owe my thanks for it to T_p because I had neglected his questions but he pushed the issue and then it came out.Just like a big turd, which is coincidentally analogous to what all of your opinions and ideas are. Glad you think that's working for you. :yay: :lol:

now it's more about making sure everyone else realizes his craziness.

NEWSFLASH: Anyone who doesn't get that from his posts never will, no matter what you do or say.

NEWSFLASH: Anyone who doesn't get that from his posts never will, no matter what you do or say.Right, and only getting him to lay his ideas out there will make that happen. But that is a lot different from actually debating him.

NEWSFLASH: Anyone who doesn't get that from his posts never will, no matter what you do or say.
:howdy: I do know that the most important people read these Forums, but I do not expect the vast majority of voters ever read the postings.

The Washington Post in a 2008 article about me :hot: called this Forum the "blogosphere" and her report was biased and I think she meant to discredit me and instead it made me look like a candidate being targeted by the Post and I got 19,067 votes just in 5th District.

Lots of things work backwards in the blogosphere.




:drummer:

:howdy: I do know that the most important people read these Forums, but I do not expect the vast majority of voters ever read the postings.

The Washington Post in a 2008 article about me :hot: called this Forum the "blogosphere" and her report was biased and I think she meant to discredit me and instead it made me look like a candidate being targeted by the Post and I got 19,067 votes just in 5th District.

Lots of things work backwards in the blogosphere.




:drummer:

Link it.

her report was biased and I think she meant to discredit me and instead it made me look like a candidate being targeted by the Post:lol: She granted you an in-person interview because she didn't know about you - and therefore could not be out to get you. She reported her analysis after allowing you to speak your mind... and she determined you had no chance, just like everyone else.

Link it.

http://forums.somd.com/politics/128016-jpc-washington-post-article.html

After rereading that thread, it is like Groundhog Day in this one. :ohwell:

WOAH!!! Wait a minute... Not only did you walk away from your son but his mother died and you still didn't have custody of him and had to pay your sons stepdaddy??? Am I reading that correctly?

This is what you people are debating with. Are you really that desperate to appear smart?

Thank You!!! As my sig line says....

Never argue with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!!

Although this HAS been quite entertaining for my morning reading, LOL

http://forums.somd.com/politics/128016-jpc-washington-post-article.html

After rereading that thread, it is like Groundhog Day in this one. :ohwell:
:howdy: Just look at that big happy smile on the picture, there in front of Pax NAS, and that is a picture of one very happy candidate.

And now we know that instead of the US Congress he was heading for the Governor's Office.



:drummer:

WOAH!!! Wait a minute... Not only did you walk away from your son but his mother died and you still didn't have custody of him and had to pay your sons stepdaddy??? Am I reading that correctly?
:howdy: When my ex-wife died then I did become the single-parent and it never went to Court over custody because my son was a little over 17 and the Child Support Office decided without any Court authorization to send the Child Support to the second husband instead of giving me my due as parent.

But in due time the Man did go down to the Child Support office and it was he that closed my Child Support case and stopped the collection process so that was that for the Child Support thieves.

And after that then I still proceeded to spray paint the Child Support office in Leonardtown and later the MD State House in Annapolis with the words of "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" because even though my c/s case was closed then I was not finished with them.




:duel:

:howdy: When my ex-wife died then I did become the single-parent and it never went to Court over custody because my son was a little over 17 and the Child Support Office decided without any Court authorization to send the Child Support to the second husband instead of giving me my due as parent.

But in due time the Man did go down to the Child Support office and it was he that closed my Child Support case and stopped the collection process so that was that for the Child Support thieves.

And after that then I still proceeded to spray paint the Child Support office in Leonardtown and later the MD State House in Annapolis with the words of "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" because even though my c/s case was closed then I was not finished with them.




:duel:

So your son lived wit you when he was 17+? Or did he continue to live with his stepdaddy? And the child support you were paying him was that current support or the arrears you never paid?

Being a Mom or Dad is a Hell of a lot more then being then being the biological unit. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
:popcorn: Lying to children is a form of child abuse in itself, and that lie about being their "Mom or Dad" when not the Mom or Dad is a step-parent lie because it only comes through step-parents.

A lie is a lie even for those that see lying to children as some thing cute.

Of course we NEVER never hear children say it is "cute" for them to be lied to.

And I do know that it is usually the custodial parents that push the step-parents into the name-calling lies but the custodials have to do a lot of lying in order to get and to receive the Child Support and for custody and they lie to the step-parents too, because "custody" means stealing the children from the separated parents.




:drummer:

:popcorn: Lying to children is a form of child abuse in itself, and that lie about being their "Mom or Dad" when not the Mom or Dad is a step-parent lie because it only comes through step-parents.

A lie is a lie even for those that see lying to children as some thing cute.

Of course we NEVER never hear children say it is "cute" for them to be lied to.

And I do know that it is usually the custodial parents that push the step-parents into the name-calling lies but the custodials have to do a lot of lying in order to get and to receive the Child Support and for custody and they lie to the step-parents too, because "custody" means stealing the children from the separated parents.




:drummer:

The person who is to blame is the father or mother that do not act like one. Sometimes the child has the bigger bond with the step and chooses to call them either mom or dad

So your son lived wit you when he was 17+? Or did he continue to live with his stepdaddy? And the child support you were paying him was that current support or the arrears you never paid?
:popcorn: I just do not know if it is okay to talk about this stuff as it is not quite my own business and my fighting against Child Support is not a personal thing to me.

But I have been picking at you so I will concede your right to know.

My son was living with his Mom and her second husband when she died of cancer at 38, and shortly thereafter my son moved out of the house at 18, and the Child Support case was closed after my mother asked the step-father to close it and he did. Then within a year of his wife's (my ex's) death then he died of cancer too around 40 years old.

My son seems to believe that there was some thing in the water as the house has always used a shallow well and in Hollywood there has been contaminates recorded from production companies in Hollywood, but no one knows for sure how she got cancer at 38 and a year later he died of cancer too, and my son lived but he also moved out of the house.

And there was some 27,000$ in arrears so legally the Man was entitled to the arrears based on death inheritance but not to the actual Child Support as my son was never adopted.

And him being legally entitled to the c/s arrears after her death is legally debatable but it never went to Court.



:drummer:

The person who is to blame is the father or mother that do not act like one. Sometimes the child has the bigger bond with the step and chooses to call them either mom or dad
:popcorn: Children do as they are told, and no child calls a step-parent as "Mom or Dad" without being instructed to do so.

And a bonding based in lies is always a dishonorable thing.

And there is no "acting" for real parents to be "Mom and Dad" but it is always a dishonest "act" for the step-parents.




:drummer:

So your son lived wit you when he was 17+? No. Or did he continue to live with his stepdaddy? Yes, until he moved out when he turned 18. And the child support you were paying him was that current support or the arrears you never paid? Arrears.
Then the step-father asked to have the CS case closed, and that was that.

Keep up, wouldja?

:popcorn: Children do as they are told, and no child calls a step-parent as "Mom or Dad" without being instructed to do so.

And a bonding based in lies is always a dishonorable thing.

And there is no "acting" for real parents to be "Mom and Dad" but it is always a dishonest "act" for the step-parents.




:drummer:

You just don't give kids enough credit. An older child will know who his biological parents are, but if there is a step parent involved that does more for the child, the child may want to call that step parent mom or dad. I don't see where lies are involved. You make kids sound really stupid.

Then the step-father asked to have the CS case closed, and that was that.

Keep up, wouldja?
I wonder.
since the CS is for the child, could JPs son get the case opened back up and have JP ordered to pay him back support?

If I would have ended up with a father like JP, I would do it. Wouldnt expect to ever get anything, but to know he was running and living the life of a bum, or locked up in jail married to bubba-joe, well, it would just give me a warm feeling.

You just don't give kids enough credit. An older child will know who his biological parents are, but if there is a step parent involved that does more for the child, the child may want to call that step parent mom or dad. I don't see where lies are involved. You make kids sound really stupid.
:howdy: It is the job of "custody" to raise the children honestly and truthfully, so when there are lies in the family then it is the custodial that is to be blamed.

The children do not lie when they are deceived or mistaken, and if the children are heard telling untruths then it is the custodial's place to correct the false and to teach the children the truth.

And the step-persons are doing wrong if they allow the children to call them as "Mom or Dad" because it is a lie.

I do not blame those kinds of lies on the children at all, but I would call it as an incompetent or immoral act of custody.




:drummer:

:howdy: It is the job of "custody" to raise the children honestly and truthfully, so when there are lies in the family then it is the custodial that is to be blamed.

The children do not lie when they are deceived or mistaken, and if the children are heard telling untruths then it is the custodial's place to correct the false and to teach the children the truth.

And the step-persons are doing wrong if they allow the children to call them as "Mom or Dad" because it is a lie.

I do not blame those kinds of lies on the children at all, but I would call it as an incompetent or immoral act of custody.




:drummer:

The more you talk to more stupid you sound.

Sperm or an egg does NOT make you a mommy or a daddy

This is what you people are debating with. Are you really that desperate to appear smart?

:lmao:

And now we know that instead of the US Congress he was heading for the Governor's Office.If you went there and knocked and they did not allow you in, would you spray paint the faćade with something like "This is my house"?


Lying to children is a form of child abuse in itself, and that lie about being their "Mom or Dad" when not the Mom or Dad is a step-parent lie because it only comes through step-parents.Yeah, I'm sure no one has ever experienced the scenario where the bio-father deserts his family when the kid is an infant, then the mother remarries a couple years later putting the new husband in position to raise the child as his own; the child would in turn only know that man as 'daddy' and naturally refer to him as such. I'm sure stuff like that never happens, and only the omniscience of JPC to have seen every relationship of all times could prove that to be so.


Gosh, that hurts just typing it. :lol:

The more you talk to more stupid you sound.

Sperm or an egg does NOT make you a mommy or a daddy
:howdy: See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.

The biological parents will remain the child's parents for their entire life and only a cold lie can interfere with that reality.

The step-persons claiming to be the real parents have to remain untrue because the truth will end their charade at any time.

A person must really value the truth in order to reject the personal lies.

And the real parents are forever the child's roots and history and lineage and inheritance and legacy and without those the child is personally blind and dumb and incomplete.

The family of the step-people have no real meaning to the child, while the real parents are the child's ancestry.

Not a child nor adult nor any "person" can know their own true identity except in their own biological terms.

Everything untrue is a fake and fraud and it creates a shallow emptiness.



:duel:

See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.

The biological parents will remain the child's parents for their entire life and only a cold lie can interfere with that reality.

The step-persons claiming to be the real parents have to remain untrue because the truth will end their charade at any time.

A person must really value the truth in order to reject the personal lies.

And the real parents are forever the child's roots and history and lineage and inheritance and legacy and without those the child is personally blind and dumb and incomplete.

The family of the step-people have no real meaning to the child, while the real parents are the child's ancestry.

Not a child nor adult nor any "person" can know their own true identity except in their own biological terms.

Everything untrue is a fake and fraud and it creates a shallow emptiness.


What about adopted children?

:howdy: See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.

The biological parents will remain the child's parents for their entire life and only a cold lie can interfere with that reality.

The step-persons claiming to be the real parents have to remain untrue because the truth will end their charade at any time.

A person must really value the truth in order to reject the personal lies.

And the real parents are forever the child's roots and history and lineage and inheritance and legacy and without those the child is personally blind and dumb and incomplete.

The family of the step-people have no real meaning to the child, while the real parents are the child's ancestry.

Not a child nor adult nor any "person" can know their own true identity except in their own biological terms.

Everything untrue is a fake and fraud and it creates a shallow emptiness.



:duel:

I only degrade those that deserve it... I know a deadbeat who supports his child but has never to this day even laid eyes on the child. He has not been involved in the child's life ever. Why? Because he doesn't want to be a parent. So even though he pays he is not a daddy.

Like I said before a deadbeat parent doesn't always mean just a person who doesn't pay child support.

See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.

When I first separated I paid all the bills as she stayed in our house and that was rediculous as it was like I just was not home, so then I stopped and she would not file for divorce or for child support so again it was unacceptable, then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so I deserted to let them figure it out.
:coffee:

So, JP, what about the woman you left your wife for, where does she figure in to all of this. She's okay with all your BS?

Here's something to celebrate, Jimmy. This is what a hero looks like - as opposed to a freeloader.

Calvert Deputy Awarded for Capturing "Most Wanted" - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/15294)

This is what a hero looks likeI have a suspicion that the two have already met at some point. :whistle:

JP

Specific personal disparagement does not roll off my fingers as easily as it does those of many other posters. I can't recall ever having called any of the posters on here a moron (though I may have). Even outside the forum setting, I avoid calling people morons to their face - not for fear of their physical reaction - but in favor of a better and more constructive articulation of the specifics of, and reasons for, my assessment of their mental abilities or behavior. Additionally, I have a hard time suppressing my natural empathy for other living things, and generally wish not to unnecessarily injure them emotionally (unnecessarily being the key word).

All of that having been said, you're a ####ing moron.

What about adopted children?
:getdown: Of course adopted children need to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

To adopt a child and then raise the child under a pack of lies is despicable.

I honestly believe that lying to children is one of the worse forms of child abuse because the lying violates the child's self identity, violates their trust, and many adults never overcome their childhood confusions based on the deceptions. Even in cases of violent physical abuses then it is the psychological violation that needs to be dealt with in honest terms or else it never heals.

And I do know that many parents that put up their children for adoption do want to remain anonymous and hidden, but I can see no real reason for the State to honor or enable that selfish and petty demand.

IMO, the child has a far greater human right to know, than any parent (or step-parent) has the right of hiding the truth.



:drummer:

I only degrade those that deserve it... I know a deadbeat who supports his child but has never to this day even laid eyes on the child. He has not been involved in the child's life ever. Why? Because he doesn't want to be a parent. So even though he pays he is not a daddy.

Like I said before a deadbeat parent doesn't always mean just a person who doesn't pay child support.
:howdy: I see you are like many people that try to play as a "god" in judging one parent as a "deadbeat" and another parent as "good money" but "bad parent" and giving your grand approval to your self and to other parents, but to give that kind of arbitrary and capricious discretion to our Courts and to the law was a big mistake to do.



:drummer:

:howdy: I see you are like many people that try to play as a "god" in judging one parent as a "deadbeat" and another parent as "good money" but "bad parent" and giving your grand approval to your self and to other parents, but to give that kind of arbitrary and capricious discretion to our Courts and to the law was a big mistake to do.



:drummer:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Nothing god-like about it.

Here's something to celebrate, Jimmy. This is what a hero looks like - as opposed to a freeloader.

Calvert Deputy Awarded for Capturing "Most Wanted" - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/15294)
:popcorn: I really feel sorry for the Man, as he tried to be a Police Officer and instead the law has turned him into a legalized thief.

When the Man meets his Maker then he will be ashamed of what he was led into.

And as I take the Office of Governor than his position will no longer be needed.



:drummer:

:popcorn: I really feel sorry for the Man, as he tried to be a Police Officer and instead the law has turned him into a legalized thief.

When the Man meets his Maker then he will be ashamed of what he was led into.

And as I take the Office of Governor than his position will no longer be needed.



:drummer:

You can't be trusted. Anyone that looks at you past criminal history would never vote for you. I can't believe you can think that. There is not one persone on the forums that would vote for you, what makes you think anyone else in the state of Maryland would?

JP

Specific personal disparagement does not roll off my fingers as easily as it does those of many other posters. I can't recall ever having called any of the posters on here a moron (though I may have). Even outside the forum setting, I avoid calling people morons to their face - not for fear of their physical reaction - but in favor of a better and more constructive articulation of the specifics of, and reasons for, my assessment of their mental abilities or behavior. Additionally, I have a hard time suppressing my natural empathy for other living things, and generally wish not to unnecessarily injure them emotionally (unnecessarily being the key word).

All of that having been said, you're a ####ing moron.
:popcorn: Well you have done me no harm, and as the childish adage goes;

I am rubber and you are glue, so it bounces off of me and sticks to you. :poke:

I do not see you as a "moron" but I say your posting show that you simply do not know how to articulate your feelings and so all you can express is the childish name calling.

And in the context that you give then the word "moron" means absolutely nothing at all.

So now we do not know how you feel about the subject or the discussion and you give nothing of substance except that you have decided to join in with other namer callers and you are now a name caller too.

Anyway, it did not injure me and quite honestly I do believe it stuck to your self.



:drummer:

You can't be trusted. Anyone that looks at you past criminal history would never vote for you. I can't believe you can think that. There is not one persone on the forums that would vote for you, what makes you think anyone else in the state of Maryland would?
:popcorn: The people that agree with me do not post because Forums do not function that way.

People post when they disagree, just like you all cuss each other out in other threads.

I got 19,067 votes in 5th District 2008 and that is far more than all the posting in this thread.



:duel:

:popcorn: The people that agree with me do not post because Forums do not function that way.

People post when they disagree, just like you all cuss each other out in other threads.

I got 19,067 votes in 5th District 2008 and that is far more than all the posting in this thread.


:duel:

you keep saying that, but that's not a big number, just sounds big to you.

:popcorn: The people that agree with me do not post because Forums do not function that way.

People post when they disagree, just like you all cuss each other out in other threads.

I got 19,067 votes in 5th District 2008 and that is far more than all the posting in this thread.



:duel:

AND I BET YOU A YEAR OF PAYCHECKS, THAT NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE READ SOME OF THE BS YOU HAVE POSTED ON HERE!!!!!

H377 THEY PROBABLY DON'T READ!

Do yourself a favor; don't waste your money on another election campaign!

You'll be throwing away good after bad!!!!
19,067 votes in 5th District 2008 , BUT YOU ARE STILL A:loser:

His statewide potential is 276,167 if they all get out and vote. Maryland Child Support, Child Support Enforcement (http://www.supportcollectors.com/csrc/maryland.php#stats)

His statewide potential is 276,167 if they all get out and vote. Maryland Child Support, Child Support Enforcement (http://www.supportcollectors.com/csrc/maryland.php#stats)

But I am sure at least half of them can read!

JP's WEBSITE!
VoteJP - Home (http://votejp.webs.com/)

This guy is a drain on our SS system.

Get out there and get a job!
SHEESH!

JP's WEBSITE!
VoteJP - Home (http://votejp.webs.com/)

This guy is a drain on our SS system.

Get out there and get a job!
SHEESH!

Exactly, he claims he's disabled, yet can run for governor. If he can do that he can get a job doing something else. Therefore, he is frauduently receiving disability. Not to mention driving his vehicle illegally. Historic plates on a vehicle, this vehicle is only to be driven for car shows and parades, but JP drives his truck every day. This plus his criminal history from the Maryland Judiciary website. The man can't be trusted, and yet he thinks he will become governor.

Exactly, he claims he's disabled, yet can run for governor. If he can do that he can get a job doing something else. Therefore, he is frauduently receiving disability. Not to mention driving his vehicle illegally. Historic plates on a vehicle, this vehicle is only to be driven for car shows and parades, but JP drives his truck every day. This plus his criminal history from the Maryland Judiciary website. The man can't be trusted, and yet he thinks he will become governor.

I really hate defending JPC, but as you are in Florida how do you know that he is driving the vehicle everyday? The actual constraints on the historic tags are:

Vehicles classified as historic certifies the vehicle will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation and similar uses. The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation or primarily for the transportation of passenngers or property on highways. If the use is occasional then he may well be within the guidlines for the use of the historic tags. There is enough wrong about him already without having to fabricate anything that cannot be substantiated.

Get out there and get a job!
SHEESH!

He's trying to get a job - a job as Governor. :jet:

I really hate defending JPC, but as you are in Florida how do you know that he is driving the vehicle everyday? The actual constraints on the historic tags are:

If the use is occasional then he may well be within the guidlines for the use of the historic tags. There is enough wrong about him already without having to fabricate anything that cannot be substantiated.

I've only been in Florida 2 months and also know lots of people that live in St. Mary's and JPs truck sticks out like a sore thumb.