Jail/Prisons & Insanity.

Originally Posted by Ken King

As such there wasn't a need to call her a dead-beat as the children already know what she is, just as they would readily know what you are. Those I call dead-beat are dead-beats,

You need to teach your children to respect their mother no matter what you think of her and no matter what the law degrades their mother as.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

It is your ex-wife but it is the children's mother that you so calously degrade.

I don't know why I bother.

But:

The idiom "baby's mother" has taken on a new connotation in today's society.

Idioms are phrases which take on unexpected meanings. For instance: "Pulling my leg" means "lying to me" and "Sleeping together" means "Having sex". ETC.


"Baby-Mother" is an idiom that has taken on the meaning: the mother of a child born out of wedlock.

Therefore the proper term is "Your Ex-Wife" not "Your baby's mother".



But go ahead - keep offending people by being a stubborn jackass.



And "callously degrade" is what YOU do to the term "parent" on a daily basis. Speaking as a husband, father, and provider, you make me absolutely sick.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

You need to teach your children to respect their mother no matter what anyone says - and no matter what the law says.

Respect is earned.

And you don't earn respect by running away from your responsiblities. You earn respect by facing your responsibilities like an ADULT, and providing for your children, even if you THINK they're already taken care of, ya freak.

[BadGirl (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

It was a long time ago but I believe the figure was $277. per month.

SO you ended up owing MORE then $20,000, I think the number you provided was closer to 25K.. so your son went more then 100 months without ANY kid of support from you, you stole from your son for TEN friggin years..


Yep the courts are screwed up, you should STILL be in jail.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Me and KK have been through this before but for any others note that I am giving the State and Federal links to back up what I said and KK knows this info but he disclaims it anyway here again and again.

First here is the USA Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act for Child Support Garnishments, and specifically note that it requires ONLY PERCENTAGES,
http://www.ChildSupportGuidelines.co...art200110.html

Last is the State of Maryland Child Support instructions and it requires only set fixed amounts which violate the above guidelines, and these are not for arrears cases only as KK claims in his quoted post above, link here at,
www.DHR.state.md.us/csea/help.htm

The Courts violate the rules because child support itself is unjust.

Read it JPC, slowly so that it can be absorbed into your dense skull. It deals with garnishment and the fact that if you aren't complying with an existing support order your wages can be garnished to the tune of 50% of your disposable earnings if you are supporting a spouse and/or child or to the tune of 60% if you are not supporting anyone other than yourself.

Now break out a calculator Mr. Wizard and compare that to the guidelines the state has lain out and see which you would rather be facing.

Let's look at an example already given elsewhere that has the custodial parent making $25K per year and the non-custodial making $60K. Total combined income = $85K or an approximate combined monthly earnings of $7,100. The state guidelines indicate that the child should be receiving support to the tune of $869. This means that the lower earner is responsible for $255.59 and the one with greater wages is responsible for $613.41.

Now using JPC mentality the non-custodial that is making $60K has disposable earnings probably somewhere near $37,500 per year or $3,125 per month meaning that his wages could be garnished up to $1,562.50 per month if they have others to support or up to $1,875 if they do not.

Now JPC, tell me which is more fair (we won't even get into which of us is right because anyone worth a lick of beans knows that) and which one you would rather have guiding any withholdings you are subject to?

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

You need to teach your children to respect their mother no matter what you think of her and no matter what the law degrades their mother as.

Listen asshat, the youngest of my kids is 25 and they know and have known for many years what their mother is or isn't. I didn't have to say a word as actions speak louder than words and they were the ones sitting and waiting for her to pick them up for visitation after visitation and she never showed. What my kids didn't have to go through was one parent being brought before a magistrate for failure to pay child support and watch as the dead-beat got carted off to jail because I wouldn't subject them to seeing their mother humiliated that way. Besides while any extra money would have been great to do more for them I didin't need it to give them a fairly good upbringing.

I wonder, can your kid say the same?

[residentofcre (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Read it JPC, slowly so that it can be absorbed into your dense skull. It deals with garnishment and the fact that if you aren't complying with an existing support order your wages can be garnished to the tune of 50% of your disposable earnings if you are supporting a spouse and/or child or to the tune of 60% if you are not supporting anyone other than yourself.

Now break out a calculator Mr. Wizard and compare that to the guidelines the state has lain out and see which you would rather be facing.

Let's look at an example already given elsewhere that has the custodial parent making $25K per year and the non-custodial making $60K. Total combined income = $85K or an approximate combined monthly earnings of $7,100. The state guidelines indicate that the child should be receiving support to the tune of $869. This means that the lower earner is responsible for $255.59 and the one with greater wages is responsible for $613.41.

Now using JPC mentality the non-custodial that is making $60K has disposable earnings probably somewhere near $37,500 per year or $3,125 per month meaning that his wages could be garnished up to $1,562.50 per month if they have others to support or up to $1,875 if they do not.

Now JPC, tell me which is more fair (we won't even get into which of us is right because anyone worth a lick of beans knows that) and which one you would rather have guiding any withholdings you are subject to?

I couldn't even get my ex to pay $50.00 a month.... Then I had to pay $200.00 believe me.... I know the system and I am very curious to see what JPC would like to propose to change it.....

I require best interest of the children to be the defining basis for any plan I would back....

Let's hear how he would change the system.... The Plan... only the plan

Originally Posted by Toxick

The idiom "baby's mother" has taken on a new connotation in today's society.

"Baby-Mother" is an idiom that has taken on the meaning: the mother of a child born out of wedlock.

Therefore the proper term is "Your Ex-Wife" not "Your baby's mother".

Calling them as my "baby's momma" is far better then calling the children's mother a "deadbeat" because those guys are degrading the child's mother to the child.

Being the "baby's momma" is a higher position then being their "ex-wife" so those guys need to understand that their children and the children's mother demand respect and they are failing to teach their own kids to respect their own mother because of the unjust child support laws.

That is my point that child support breaks up families and the child support creates divisions in the families and when one of the parents (father or mother) is degraded by child support laws and its name calling then the children get degraded too. The custodial sells out their family and their duty to the child support slanders.

A "baby's momma" is not an insult but telling children that their other separated parent (father or mother) is a "deadbeat" is gutless, dishonorable, disloyal and cheap.

I want to put a stop to using slander against parents and stop teaching slander to the children too.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Respect is earned.And you don't earn respect by running away from your responsiblities.

FYI. True worthwhile respect can not be earned. Respect must be given by persons capable of that high quality or else a person must take respect from those to low to give it, but true respect can not ever be earned. Some people consider servitude as respect or believe that the fear from others is earned respect but it is all a fraud.

I know this from experience that those that so pompously claim others have to earn their respect are persons that never give respect to anyone. That form of respect is worthless. Better is it to be taken from the pompous claimant. FYI.

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

It is your ex-wife but it is the children's mother that you so calously degrade. You need to teach your children to respect their mother no matter what anyone says - and no matter what the law says.

I'm guessing this obsession with saying custodial parents are degrading the noncustodial parents is akin to the theif who is always worried someone is going to steal his stuff.

Normal people don't see the need to denigrate their childrens other parent, but i'm guessing someone without the moral fortiude to even pay childsupport (YOU) would find yourself contantly casting dispersion on your ex-wife because she expects you to meet your court ordered resposibilities.


ask the librarian to interpret this for you before you try to respond, thanks

Originally Posted by residentofcre

Let's hear how he would change the system.... The Plan... only the plan

My plan is to make law that would require the child support be based as percentages and not set fixed amounts.

See my campain website with child support platform,
here at, www.ElectCusick.BraveHost.com/ChildSupport.html

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Calling them as my "baby's momma" is far better then calling the children's mother a "deadbeat" because those guys are degrading the child's mother to the child.

I simply told you that some people consider that phrase insulting.

Like I said, feel free to be a horse's ass, and insult as many people as you please by ignoring modern idiomatic patterns.

Deadbeat - another idiom - is used as a definition of someone who eschews their responsibilities, not only with regards to their children, but other financial matters as well.

You call it slander - but it simply is what it is. A cow doesn't get insulted when you call it a cow. It's not slander if its true.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

That is my point that child support breaks up families and the child support creates divisions in the families

I'm getting tired of this ignorant rhetoric. The family is ALREADY broken. If the family was NOT broken in the first place, there would be NO child support involved at all.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

and when one of the parents (father or mother) is degraded by child support laws and its name calling then the children get degraded too.

No they don't.

No they do not.

In this situation, the ONLY thing that is degrading to the children is the parent who refuses to support them.

Do you want to know what I find really degrading about this whole situation? Consider for a moment your stance on these "relocatable fireboxes" or whatever term you want to affix to classroom trailers. These trailers are adequate for teaching. They are adequately safe for children. They are adequate enough to get the job done - but it is your contention that "the children deserve better".

HOWEVER:

When it comes to the child support issue, you defend the neglect of deadbeat parents, and you throw around terms like, "The children are provided for," either by their custodial parent, who makes enough to support the children alone, or by their stepparent who makes enough to support them, or by a welfare checks and WIC programs which can support them.

But apparently these children do NOT deserve better.



No matter what you think about how well the children being provided for, when the a non-custodial parent PAYS THEIR SHARE, the children are provided for BETTER.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

A "baby's momma" is not an insult but telling children that their other separated parent (father or mother) is a "deadbeat" is gutless, dishonorable, disloyal and cheap.

You have the sickening audacity to say that calling a deadbead a deadbeat is gutless, dishonorable, disloyal and cheap - AND YET you say that it's just fine to dump your responsiblities on someone else (notabley your ex-spouse's new spouse) and on top of that, THEY DESERVE RESPECT?


Not facing your responsibilities as a parent is gutless.

Shifting your burden to someone else is dishonorable.

Not supporting your children is disloyal.

Not supporting your children is cheap.



I find your unmitigated gall offensive in the extreme.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I want to put a stop to using slander against parents and stop teaching slander to the children too.

It's not slander if its true.

If, however, you wish to stop the name-calling, then perhaps you should focus your efforts on fixing the problem - not the symptom.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

FYI. True worthwhile respect can not be earned.

It absolutely can be earned.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Respect must be given by persons capable of that high quality or else a person must take respect from those to low to give it, but true respect can not ever be earned. Some people consider servitude as respect or believe that the fear from others is earned respect but it is all a fraud.

What the hell are you babbling about?

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I know this from experience that those that so pompously claim others have to earn their respect are persons that never give respect to anyone.

Bull####.

Call me pompous if you wish, and I won't deny it. But when I say that one must earn my respect I absolutely mean it - but contrary to your prediction above, there are many people that I respect.

For instance, I respect my parents. Even when they were young and didn't make much money, my father busted his ass working insane hours to keep food on the table and a roof over our head. When he got injured and was out of work, he STILL made sure that we were fed and had clothes on our asses.

There are people on this very forum whom I hold in high regard.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

That form of respect is worthless. Better is it to be taken from the pompous claimant. FYI.

It is good that you consider my respect worthless.

Because you get NONE of it.