JPC says...

JPC sr

James P. Cusick Sr.
The truth will set us all free.

You started your forum campaign against any support from non-custodial parent to child by saying per centages of income.
:popcorn: You are contradicting in twisting my words.

Saying the separated parents need to pay a percentage as the Federal law requires is not the same as giving no support as you are twisting it above.

Plus I have my campaign website (link in Signature and in Profile) still says the same thing as I have said from the beginning :

Reform child support and not to destroy it. Change to percentages and stop abusive fixed numbers.

And yes I did say that I would love to destroy your personal dirty little child support abuse and I still hope and pray for that event.
(This was, of course, before you said the non-custodial had no moral obligation to the child, and while you've said the only way a child could go without is if the custodial parent is neglectful - implying again the non-custodial parent has no obligation to their child.)
:diva: Again, this is T_p twisting of my words and it is a fraud and dishonest.

I said, and still say, that no parent and no body is morally obligated to the unjust child support laws, and that says LAWS not their children. They still have legal obligations to pay the c/s and very many parents do indeed submit to the gov forced thievery but it is ONLY by force of law and not from moral stand. It has nothing to do with their regard for their children.

You might not agree and may not like what I say but twisting and changing my words makes you into the fraud and makes you dishonest.
What's wrong with sticking with that concept? A reliable support for the child based upon a percentage of what the non-custodial parent has proven he/she can earn?
:popcorn: The Courts are corrupted in that the separated parents are presumed as "deadbeats" and the Courts treat them accordingly.

Plus you are saying a "percentage" when you know as I have preached often that the child support is NEVER EVER given as a percentage but ONLY as a hard fixed amount which does violate the given Federal law link HERE and it harms the parents, and criples many parents, and forces many of the parents into crime of defying the injustice.

I know that you are purposely claiming the "percentages" as in the quote above because you already know it is not accurate, and for whatever reason you are supporting or trying to hide the injustice.
In the spirit of Christmas, I'll ignore your insult after insult
:coffee: Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you. :buddies:
 

JPC sr

James P. Cusick Sr.
The truth will set us all free.

T_P, I find your quote at the bottom of your posts very fitting for this thread!
:buddies: Well I agree too.

And here is the text in case he changes it later :


"Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance & conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King Jr. "

:whistle:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Saying the separated parents need to pay a percentage as the Federal law requires is not the same as giving no support as you are twisting it above.
I see, I was honestly unclear. I meant to say, you have a crusade to destroy all child support. However, you actually understand that won't happen, so your initial intent was to "reform" by taking percentages, not fixed amounts. I was unclear, honest mistake - not a twist of your words.
Reform child support and not to destroy it. Change to percentages and stop abusive fixed numbers.
But, as you also know, the child support fixed numbers are based upon percentages. In other words, the amount each parent earns is taken into account, and a percentage of the non-custodial parent's income is calculated. That amount is then set as the fixed amount - to protect custodial, non-custodial, and child. The custodial gets protection by having a fixed amount to count on, the child gets protected by actually having support from the non-custodial parent, and the non-custodial gets protected by allowing them to earn money through overtime, second job, etc., and have that income be counted upon by the non-custodial - themselves - in full. It's the most fair and equitable way to do it, overall.
And yes I did say that I would love to destroy your personal dirty little child support abuse and I still hope and pray for that event.
Your evil wishes have been granted, as I've repeated told you. My ex rarely gave any support, and my children are over 18 years old now. So, your hopes and prayers for my children's neglect by their mother have been answered.
Again, this is T_p twisting of my words and it is a fraud and dishonest.
Actually, what you said was:
Speaking legally the separated parent is legally required to pay child support and I agree that is the law, but that law is oppressive and evil and I believe that parents and honest citizens need to resist it.

Second answer to above: Since the children do already have all of their real needs met in full then the separated parent is not morally obligated to give extras to anybody.
:jameo: If any child is in that condition it is only - ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial. They have custody. If any child in the entire USA does without then it is only -ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial - only by the custodial.:howdy:
Thus, I am repeating your words, not twisting them. The twisted part is your mind on this, not me.
I said, and still say, that no parent and no body is morally obligated to the unjust child support laws, and that says LAWS not their children. They still have legal obligations to pay the c/s and very many parents do indeed submit to the gov forced thievery but it is ONLY by force of law and not from moral stand. It has nothing to do with their regard for their children.

You might not agree and may not like what I say but twisting and changing my words makes you into the fraud and makes you dishonest.
After reading your own words, are you ready to apologize to me for this baseless slander against the messanger, while ignoring the message?
The Courts are corrupted in that the separated parents are presumed as "deadbeats" and the Courts treat them accordingly.
No, separated parents are NOT presumed to be deadbeats. Parents who do not support their children are considered to be deadbeats. A deadbeat is someone who does not fullfill their legal, financial obligation. Thus, the consideration is accurate. NOT separated parent - non-supporting parent.
Plus you are saying a "percentage" when you know as I have preached often that the child support is NEVER EVER given as a percentage but ONLY as a hard fixed amount which does violate the given Federal law link HERE and it harms the parents, and criples many parents, and forces many of the parents into crime of defying the injustice.
The federal law you quote merely states the maximum amount that can be garnished from wages, based upon percentages, for money owed. It does NOT, in any way, say that child support must be based upon percentages. Child support laws are state laws, not federal laws, Mr. Candidate. What this says is that there is a maximum limit on how much can be withheld to provide support. Two things could ever get these amounts this high - several children from several partners, or, significantly delinquent on current support. This is a protection for the non-custodial parent from having too little left over for themselves. It is NOT what you claim it to be.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you. :buddies:
It was nice to see you post this full size.
 

godsbutterfly

Free to Fly
Merry Christmas to you, and thank you.

I feel like I'm posting, almost word for word, what I started posting with him months and months ago. I'm ready to give up.

Ever seen the movie "Ground Hogs Day?" where Bill Murray keeps having to repeat the day over and over? This is kinda like that, sorry to say!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Ever seen the movie "Ground Hogs Day?" where Bill Murray keeps having to repeat the day over and over? This is kinda like that, sorry to say!
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/unsw-3-r-lY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/unsw-3-r-lY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
I see, I was honestly unclear. I meant to say, you have a crusade to destroy all child support. However, you actually understand that won't happen, so your initial intent was to "reform" by taking percentages, not fixed amounts....
Jimmy, did you wish to acknowledge your failings, inaccuracies, and then apologize?
 
Top