I knew visiting JPC's website would pay off!

[hvp05 (Premo)]

I have visited the site a couple times, but I never moved past the first page because that alone was enough to satisfy my need for a laugh.

But just a short while ago I browsed the forum and read some amusing comments. Such as this:

Author: !@#$%^&*() "So you just dont have many people on this forum. I suspect you do not have many people voting for you either. What do you say about that?"

Author: The Candidate, JPC, Sr. "It just looks empty because people do not write anything into this Forum and that is okay.

Many campaigns do not even have a website and I am pleased with this one. I really believe that the more enlightened people do know the value of the Internet so that those that do come to this website is the cream of the crop as the saying goes even if they choose not to post a message on this Forum."

It's hilarious that you take those kinds of shots on your own site... but I do give you credit for taking them all the same.


Next I moved to the "Links" and saw this entry:

kipetok
Your home page its great motorola v600 | mature fat women porn | valium information | cheap cialis | order xanax | "Drug Valium" | generic celebrex | celebrex | hydrocodone on line | mature moms | phentermine without perscription | cheap viagra | free mature porn pics | dripping pu**y | xanax overdose | addiction vicodin | asian teens | nude beaches | asian thumbs | carisoprodol online |

Is that the "cream of the crop" that you were saying visit your site? You might consider editing this page, since you are supposedly trying to impress the folks with your campaign.


Lastly, I read your biography. I even linked over to the case (Thrower, Mason & Miles v. MD Bureau of Support Enforcement) you cite as your main - er, only - justification that our child support system is "abusive". Not far into the court document is this paragraph:

The case was argued before us as though the finding of contempt was based on the willful failure to pay the court-ordered child support. In fact, as noted, the contempt that was charged was the failure to maintain bi-weekly contact with BOSE. Appellants do not question in this appeal whether it is permissible for a court to order that a sum of money be paid as a purge of that form of contempt, so we shall not address that issue.

See, JPC, the problem for you is that this case has nothing at all to do with whether or not child support is "right" or "wrong", or too harsh or too lenient. The appellants were also not suing in regards to their actual ordered support. They were suing based on technicalities associated with their particular circumstances.

Their case has nothing to do with yours. Or any other deadbeat sperm-donor. Therefore, your idea to use this argument as part of your campaign platform is still completely baseless and incredibly tenuous.

Originally Posted by hvp05

I read your biography. I even linked over to the case (Thrower, Mason & Miles v. MD Bureau of Support Enforcement) you cite as your main - er, only - justification that our child support system is "abusive". Not far into the court document is this paragraph:See, JPC, the problem for you is that this case has nothing at all to do with whether or not child support is "right" or "wrong", or too harsh or too lenient. The appellants were also not suing in regards to their actual ordered support. They were suing based on technicalities associated with their particular circumstances.

Their case has nothing to do with yours. Therefore, your idea to use this argument as part of your campaign platform is still completely baseless and incredibly tenuous.

That case May 8, 2000, the child support enforcement (BOSE) lost the case and it subsequently changed the law for all of the State of Maryland by making so that now the parents do have a right to a lawyer and a lawyer must be appointed if the parent can not afford an attorney. It also changed all of Maryland law making so a real Judge has to hear the cases and not a master of the Court, and it made so that a purge amount had to be realistic, that case also denounced the St. Mary's County Court Master F. Michael Harris for abusing the law and abusing the Court's authority.

I spray painted on the SMC Circuit Courthouse that "Micheal Harris" was the "Thief master" and this case proves that both the spray paint and I were correct.

That is the point of referencing that case.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

And how do you manage to transform that case into "child support is bad"? That decision still does not excuse deadbeat, runaway fathers - as you want to do. Nor does it give you justification to spray paint a government building. Who do you think would change their mind based on that?

Originally Posted by hvp05

And how do you manage to transform that case into "child support is bad"?

I do not use that case against the child support itself, but I do use it against the SMC c/s enforcement that did abuse our local citizens. I explain how c/s is wrong on the website - click link here, where I say that child support is particularly wrong by failing to use the percentages as the law states.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I do not use that case against the child support itself, but I do use it against the SMC c/s enforcement that did abuse our local citizens. I explain how c/s is wrong on the website - click link here, where I say that child support is particularly wrong by failing to use the percentages as the law states.

Alrighty, I'm looking at this page (again).

And I'm looking at the section titled, "The Child Support Reform". You immediately cite that reform is needed... based on that one case... from 6 years ago. Once again we see that your worst enemy is yourself.

Additionally, in your call for reform you have apparently overlooked the fact that reform has already taken place. Guess who said so. YOU did! Read your previous post, blockhead.

Okay, let me compose myself for one more...

Only poor parents go to jail.

Where is the data to support that assertion?

[czygvtwkr]

You might want to use a spell checker on your own website.

Its defense, not defence.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

07-01-2006 04:45 PM Jumped on the bandwagon, did ya?

If you mean the bandwagon of telling JPC he is flagrantly wrong and brain dead and doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the 29B office then yes. Actually, I have been on that bandwagon for a while.

And where are the people jumping on his bandwagon to defend him? :silence:

[MysticalMom (Premo)]

If you stop baiting him he might go away. TIA.

[czygvtwkr]

Originally Posted by MysticalMom

If you stop baiting him he might go away. TIA.

He is entertaining though

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by czygvtwkr

He is entertaining though

You just hit him on spelling, then you screwed up the punctuation.

No wonder you had to start a "Why is everybody picking on me" thread!