Jail/Prisons & Insanity.

Originally Posted by Ken King

Missing a day or two or even a week isn’t a hardship worthy of having what has been determined as a person’s fair share to be changed. The child doesn’t miss needing food, shelter, or care during those periods, do they? And very few employers give “snow days” JPC, do you think everyone is still a school kid?


Under the law now if a non-custodial were to win the lottery then the custodial could request a modification to the order for an adjustment. Under your theory any non-custodial that wanted to get out of paying child support could simply quit work becoming self-impoverished or break a law and get thrown in jail. In my mind being a criminal locked away does not relinquish the responsibility to take care of their children so I feel it is only right that the amount owed continues to build while the scum is in jail. Under the law if a person actually becomes unable to work (through no fault of their own) then it is up to the court to determine how the order should be modified and possibly set aside after the person requests the reconsideration and they can make it retro-active to eliminate any amount held in arrears.


Cite the Maryland law that says this?


God curses you, based on how you neglected your child that is something you can be assured of, but it won’t be with victory.

I feel that KK's reasoning gives justification for armed violent rebellion.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I feel that KK's reasoning gives justification for armed violent rebellion.

What are you talking about asshat?

Couldn't you find where in the law it says that child support is to be based on a percentage?

Originally Posted by Ken King

What are you talking about asshat?

Couldn't you find where in the law it says that child support is to be based on a percentage?

I have shown it over and over again and it is KK that refuses to acknowledge it, so here is the link with info AGAIN,

Federal USA Law for Child Support for the USA. stating ONLY percentages.

The States and the Courts refuse to comply with this law because of the slander against parents.

Plus note for KK, where it says it does not apply for cases under Judicial Review only means that the Courts can go over the 25 percent and can order the abusive 26 - 65 percentage.

But there is the link and there is the fact.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I have shown it over and over again and it is KK that refuses to acknowledge it, so here is the link with info AGAIN,

Federal USA Law for Child Support for the USA. stating ONLY percentages.

The States and the Courts refuse to comply with this law because of the slander against parents.

Plus note for KK, where it says it does not apply for cases under Judicial Review only means that the Courts can go over the 25 percent and can order the abusive 26 - 65 percentage.

But there is the link and there is the fact.

And again it does not say that. It says

The consumer protections of § 303(a) of the Act do not apply, however, to “any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction . . . which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.” 15 U.S.C. § 1673(d)(1). In such cases, a garnishment to enforce any order of support shall not exceed 50% of an individual’s disposable earnings if the individual is supporting a spouse or dependent child other than the spouse or child for whose support the order is to be used. 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)(2), or 60% where the individual is not supporting another spouse or child.

So try again and find where in Maryland Law it says that child support payments must be a precentage.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

But there is the link and there is the fact.

You wouldn't know a fact if it reached up and slapped you across the face. Not only that, but you cannot read and comprehend what is plainly written when it is right in front of you. You have no clue as to what the laws mean or why they were crafted. Are these the strengths you intend to bring to the Maryland House of Delegates? Maybe you should take up drinking on a regular basis, at least then you could justify your stupidity.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

That is a correct assessment so I must give in that percentages would improve the system but the system is still fundamentally flawed so percentages will fail just as the present system has failed but it would still be an improvement. This is part of why I say that stopping the growth will be easy but bringing justice to child support will be a great deal of work. The issue will need to be worked out in the Legislature and approved by the State Senate and the Governor would have a big imput to the reform and I can not say with certainty how the end product would turn out but I do say with certainty that the child support system we have now is broken and unjust and it needs reform and I will start that process when I get elected.

BUT for the posted question I am sure the law would put that parent in jail but I would feel delighted if the parent were to spray paint the gov building with words like "Child Support Thieves" and "Thou Shalt Not Steal" so then the parent could go to jail for actually doing some real crime.

Why do you pretend to care about percentages? This post shows that all you care about is freeing your fellow deadbeats from their obligations. The rest is just a smokescreen.

Originally Posted by Ken King

And again it does not say that. It says

So here again it says "do not exceed 25%" and it says do not exceed 50%" and again it says "60%" and that means percentages and not fixed set amounts.

Here is the link again so anyone can see for oneself and do not believe KK's repeated denials of the facts shown here on this link, believe your eyes and not KK's ....
http://www.ChildSupportGuidelines.co...art200110.html

Originally Posted by Ken King

So try again and find where in Maryland Law it says that child support payments must be a precentage.

That is my specific point that the federal guidelines are not followed in Maryland law and Maryland only uses fixed set amounts and not percentages, thus the Maryland law is wrong and abusive. Point taken.

[Ken King (Premo)]

JPC,

You are an idiot if you think that is what this says. Well actually you are an idiot anyway even before you continued with this ridiculous claim that you keep making. How stupid can one person be?

But to point it out to you one more freaking time The Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act clearly states that they would not apply to child support orders unless they exceed the garnishment limits for said orders.

(b) Exceptions

(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of (A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.

As child support orders are issued by a court holding jurisdiction over the matter as established under Maryland law, they provide all parties involved with substantial due process and they are subject to judicial review, so tell me how they are not excepted from the provisions of the Act? In other and simpler words, the restrictions of this act do not mean that child support orders must be established by a percentage value.

It means should an order for garnishment be necessary to make a person comply with a child support order the most that could be withheld from a person's disposable income would be 50% if that person is supporting others or 60% if they are not supporting anyone else, that is unless the arrearages are greater than 12 weeks old then the amount increases to 55% and 65% respectively.

The simple fact that you do not understand what this act states or the structure of laws is a further example of your inadequacies and you should not seek elected office in the legislative branch of our government. Or for that matter I doubt if you have the requisite intellect and ability to become an animal warden.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

JustPureCrazy didn't respond to my last two posts.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

That is a correct assessment so I must give in that percentages would improve the system but the system is still fundamentally flawed so percentages will fail just as the present system has failed but it would still be an improvement.

Besides being your regular poor, confounded grammar, this statement is very funny. "My system would suck just as bad, but we should still do it because the future King JPC said so."

Mr. Cusick, I am also surprised that you mentioned "snow days" and other such disturbances that may cause a shortage from a normal paycheck. For someone that was so far behind on their support payments so frequently, you should know that it takes months of non-payment before the court will become involved. Moreover, unless the custodial parent is really trying to pin the other against the wall, they likely will not initiate action over the occasional shortage. Of course, in your case, I could understand if your wife had tried to strip you of every damn cent.

Originally Posted by Ken King

As child support orders are issued by a court holding jurisdiction over the matter as established under Maryland law, they provide all parties involved with substantial due process and they are subject to judicial review, so tell me how they are not excepted from the provisions of the Act? In other and simpler words, the restrictions of this act do not mean that child support orders must be established by a percentage value.

The law states, and the link proves it, that a Court under due process and Judicial Review can then exceed the 25% as stated in the first paragraph on the link, and the the Court can raise it to the 50% - 65% and that is the law in percentage and Maryland law does not do it.

Originally Posted by Ken King

It means should an order for garnishment be necessary to make a person comply with a child support order the most that could be withheld from a person's disposable income would be 50% if that person is supporting others or 60% if they are not supporting anyone else, that is unless the arrearages are greater than 12 weeks old then the amount increases to 55% and 65% respectively.

It says that in the link under Federal law and here KK has it written too that the child support can only increase maximun to 65%, and that is percentage but the Courts only order fixed set amounts which is unjust and oppressive. I do not know how KK can quote percentages here in his post and then say it does not require percentages. It is a direct controdiction and I believe my own eyes and not controdictions from KK.