The Child Support injustice.

[hvp05]

It is just that you are twisting around reality and that is the problem.

Can't help but at that.

The Health Care reform is to bring our federal budget under control

By digging the hole deeper... I'd hate to see how you organize your finances.

And the high taxes are not to pay for health care

Could you point out where the federal government earns its own money to pay for its actions?

our super huge military budget so we can attack and kill the entire world

Not the entire world, but certainly a few hotspots are high on the hitlist.

And some citizens might see taxes for health care as you say - that as "stealing or unjust" but I am not on their team.

To rephrase: foisting a massive tax burden on those who are successful to support those who are an utter waste of society's space, not unjust. Being required to support one's own offspring, however, totally unjust.

You really should move up to P.G., as that is about the only place your campaign will receive the slightest shred of recognition.

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

But, if you choose to spray paint buildings, then choose to turn yourself in for doing just that, knowing full well you'll be imprisoned for it - aren't you choosing to separate yourself from your child? Thus, aren't you guilty, per your own post, of "damaging and alienating" your own child?

You are just so determined to attack me that you completely ignore the actual message.

A parent being separate from their children is not the same as Parental Alienation link 1, link 2, and separation alone is not necessarily damaging the children.

Parental Alienation: A Mental Diagnosis? - US News and World Report

And a parent spray painting the Child Support thieves' buildings is setting a morally right example for any child (or citizen) to see that the parent does not serve thieves.

But there is a big problem when the custodial alienates the separated parent.

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

Mr. Butler has been a criminal for 18 years including theft, forgery, assault, battery, and a 2nd degree sex offense. He was a criminal long before he decided to neglect his children.

If you want to hold up someone as an example of the child support system turning into a criminal, you need to find someone who actually wasn't a criminal before the CS system got hold of him.

You can dig up that stuff but I do not even look at his record as it makes no difference to me.

And the point I made still remains because that father must have gone to the Child Support hearing to be given work release in the first place, which means that father was trying to do as the law wanted, and he had a job too so he was trying to live by societal standards, and after he got into the work release and so how horrible of a deal it is (I was there myself and it is trash) so he went back to crime as that is what the Child Support system does is push parents into being a criminal.

And now that father has no job and we are now paying some $20,000 per year to keep him in jail, and this time when he gets released then he will be a new detriment to this society.

I am offering some thing far better by saying to stop making parents into criminals.

Kind of like how you claim the CS turned you into a criminal, even though you admitted you raped women and had a narcotics charge long before you faced any CS related charges.

The Child Support did push me into crime, but I never raped anyone and the narcotics change was a meaningless dud.

 

[hvp05]

And a parent spray painting the Child Support thieves' buildings is setting a morally right example for any child (or citizen) to see that the parent does not serve thieves.

And you can now direct us to the law(s) that were changed, or at the very least, the lawmakers whose minds you swayed, in the wake of your actions, right? Surely, you have something to look at or point to as a positive result to make your efforts worthwhile, because otherwise you were throwing a meaningless tantrum.

And now that father has no job and we are now paying some $20,000 per year to keep him in jail, and this time when he gets released then he will be a new detriment to this society.

And the alternative would be... to allow him to run away, thereby dumping his child's care onto the state's shoulders, all while he continues to be a detriment anyway.

The Child Support did push me into crime

How many times have you walked into a store and tried to take something without paying, afterward using the excuse that everything was made to be so tempting that you could not resist?

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

And you can now direct us to the law(s) that were changed, or at the very least, the lawmakers whose minds you swayed, in the wake of your actions, right? Surely, you have something to look at or point to as a positive result to make your efforts worthwhile, because otherwise you were throwing a meaningless tantrum.

It is fine by me if you and your kind want to view my actions as a temper tantrum.

So I got 3 years in Prison for spray painting the State House, and that means the State paid over 60,000 or 70,000 bucks when the spray paint cost me $1.55, and I loved doing the crime and I was happy to do the time as my act of civil disobedience against the Child Support thieves.

And the alternative would be... to allow him to run away, thereby dumping his child's care onto the state's shoulders, all while he continues to be a detriment anyway.

As the law is now that father is doing more to break the thieving Child Support then are most parents, because he is now costing the State big money and he is a living demonstration of the stupidity of the Child Support system.

IMO, he is an active and living warrior-parent right now, even if he does not know it himself.

And if I get elected then this stupidity will be stopped, and if I do not get elected then the law will fall under its own stupidity.

And we know that his children, like all the children, are completely fine and provided to overflowing.

 

[hvp05]

It is fine by me if you and your kind want to view my actions as a temper tantrum.

So I got 3 years in Prison for spray painting the State House, and that means the State paid over 60,000 or 70,000 bucks when the spray paint cost me $1.55, and I loved doing the crime and I was happy to do the time as my act of civil disobedience against the Child Support thieves.

I don't want to view your outburst as anything, necessarily. But if your actions had no net effect on the laws or the people who make them, then yes, your actions would be categorized as nothing more than a selfish tantrum.

Costing "the state" money is no proof of anything, primarily because "the state" has no money; if you hurt anyone it was your fellow citizens. But I know you have trouble comprehending the concept of taxes. So the other reason costing money is no proof is because once the money was spent and the mess cleaned up, probably within a few days or so, your great legacy was literally wiped out as if it had never happened.

Once you're finally gone there will be no reminder of your existence... as it should be.

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

So, a parent being separated - deserting his own family - is okay,

Being separated and deserting are two completely different terms.

And I do not see it as okay for a parent to be separated from their own children, but it happens, and in some cases it is necessary. Like a sailor going off to sea, or a parent going to jail, or some other unnatural occurrence.

The parent(s) deserting is an unnatural occurrence and a sad reality.

but a parent who chooses to not follow the law and therefore gets imprisoned is not okay?

That is not okay, but it happens anyway.

It would be better if the parent did not feel the need to brake the law.

Why? What difference is there?

What you wrote is so confused that I have no idea of what is different or what your point is in any of it.

You say it's a problem if the custodial alienates the non-custodial. If it's the non-custodial's actions that cause the alienation, isn't it the non-custodial choosing to alienate himself/herself from the child(ren)?

It really does not matter if the separated parent chose to be separated or not for any reason whatsoever.

The duty of custody is to teach the children properly and that includes to "Honor thy father and thy mother" or else the custody is inadequate.

Like even if one parent dies then the custodial must not be raising the children as alienated from their real but dead parent, and a child can indeed honor their dead parent(s) or separated parents or absent parent or the parents living in the family home.

There is no reason for any child to feel alienated from either parent unless the custodial has failed in their job of providing custody.

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

I don't want to view your outburst as anything, necessarily. But if your actions had no net effect on the laws or the people who make them, then yes, your actions would be categorized as nothing more than a selfish tantrum.

Costing "the state" money is no proof of anything, primarily because "the state" has no money; if you hurt anyone it was your fellow citizens. But I know you have trouble comprehending the concept of taxes. So the other reason costing money is no proof is because once the money was spent and the mess cleaned up, probably within a few days or so, your great legacy was literally wiped out as if it had never happened.

Once you're finally gone there will be no reminder of your existence... as it should be.

I agree that costing the State money meant nothing, and the best after effect of my spray painting is that I get to brag about it ever after.

You see it as a tantrum, and I like calling it a tantrum, and in my own perspective I am extremely proud of my spray paintings and the subsequent jail and prison adventures so that I am just bursting with pleasure over it all.

It was fun, empowering, liberating, enjoyable, and I could have been killed in jail or on the streets and in other situations so it was a wild adventure.

And all that is really what first launched me into politics, and now I am going to be the Governor of Maryland, and I am going to reform the same thieving Child Support laws.

 

[hvp05]

Like a sailor going off to sea, or a parent going to jail, or some other unnatural occurrence.

I am almost certain I read that you equate going to jail with going off to serve one's country, but I don't want to look because I may smash my head on my desk if I am correct.

There is no reason for any child to feel alienated from either parent unless the custodial has failed in their job of providing custody.

So when you deserted your family it was your wife's responsibility to keep track of you so little Jimmy could still talk with you? While you were jumping all around the country from Florida to Las Vegas, going from job to job, partying frequently and doing all kinds of un-dadlike activities, it was her job to keep tabs on you. That could be difficult even in our current Internet/e-mail/cellphone age.

A logical person would think that the one with custody already has enough on their plate taking care of the deserted child[ren], and the least the non-custodial could do is make a damn phone call occasionally.

Leave it to you to think otherwise...

 

[hvp05]

I am just bursting with pleasure over it all.

You and Obama are like peas in a pod: absurdly self-absorbed. Although, to his credit at least he has been successful in some way, where you would be his inverse.

I am going to be the Governor of Maryland

You have already admitted you do not believe that.

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

You and Obama are like peas in a pod: absurdly self-absorbed.

I am happy to be compared with our great President Obama.

Even if you meant it incorrectly, I still thank you indeed.

You have already admitted you do not believe that.

I have never said that I would not be Governor, and since I am a legally registered candidate and unless something unplanned happens then I will be on the voter's ballot, so that means that no one knows if I will win or not.

Some might pretend to be prophets that see the future but not me.

Of course I do acknowledge that I am a political long shot against a big rich incumbent so my chance of winning is not guaranteed, but I still do have plans on occupying the MD Mansion as the next Governor.

And even if you dig up some old posting then I only say what is explicitly written and I give no secret messages, and no between the lines, no hidden or obscure meanings, because I write and post what I mean, and only mean what I specifically write, and nothing else.

 

[carie_47421]

JP - I think I speak for all of us when I say STFU!

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

JP - I think I speak for all of us when I say STFU!

It is not nice to mis-use such dirty language, and did not your Mom teach you how to talk.

It is just not cool.

 

[carie_47421]

Mom mom taught me how to talk to JACKAS*E* like you !!

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.



I would say this means that T_p has officially returned to my world.

So welcome back my old adversary.

Agreed. And, it hurts the children badly. By the non-custodial parent's choice. That's horrific.Agreed. Childish, irresponsible behavior to break the law.

We are not agreed with that way which you twisted it around.

And it takes two (2) to be "agreed" and you can not do it as one sided.

And I find that every separated parent is never separated from their own children by their own free choice, as it is always a separation because of some form of force or coercion against the parents.

If you feel the law is improper, there are means to change the law. Breaking the law is virtually never an honorable thing to do - and that includes child support law. If one disagrees, one still needs to follow the law while trying to change it.

I say that is true at first, like I tried and I do believe all separated parents do try at first to cooperate with the law and try to get a fair and decent deal, but after we find out the law is corrupt and unreasonable then any citizen including parents do have the right to fight back against the unjust gov by whatever means they chose.

Breaking a rightful law is not honorable, but breaking or defying an unjust law is always an honorable thing to do.

Unless, of course, the non-custodial parent is in someway dishonorable. To teach a child to honor a dishonorable parent would be dishonest to the child, and therefore horribly wrong.

I do not agree with that at all.

It does not matter what the parent is like as it is the child's duty to honor both parents and one's personal duty is never dependent on any other person.

And the custodial is to teach it properly to the children or it is a failure of custody.

And the famous commandment of "Honor thy father and thy mother" is not conditional as if do it only if one wants to - no.

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
KJV, link.

And see how there is a blessing and a cursing on that command, so doing it they are blessed, and by not doing it the children are cursed.

 

[hvp05]

I have never said that I would not be Governor

You have said you do not want to be governor, and your apathetic actions (e.g., lack of campaigning or otherwise getting any message out beyond these forums) have already sealed your electoral fate. The saying goes that actions speak louder than words, and your actions certainly confirm that you haven't the will to do anything more than leech off society for the rest of your days.

 

[VoteJP]

Custody means legally stealing the children.

You have said you do not want to be governor, and your apathetic actions (e.g., lack of campaigning or otherwise getting any message out beyond these forums) have already sealed your electoral fate. The saying goes that actions speak louder than words, and your actions certainly confirm that you haven't the will to do anything more than leech off society for the rest of your days.

It is an oxymoron like explained in the Tao, that I want to be Governor and do not want it at the same time.

It is like having a tooth pulled in that I hate doing it but it is necessary.

And I have always done campaign ads in the Newspapers and I plan to do some in the Newspapers again in this campaign but it is too early to do it now.

And I might get on TV when the time for the debates come around.

 

[SouthernMdRocks]

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.

You have a crippled mind.

 

[VoteJP]

The Contrarian.

You have a crippled mind.

But do not you see the irony of what I said?

The parents go to Court and try to pay the Child Support and then get thrown into jail and called a "deadbeat" when the parents are just dead-broke.

And people call that as law and order.

 

[VoteJP]

The Contrarian.

No, it's choice. Use yourself as an example - who coerced you to desert your family?

You, like so many others, abandoned your family because you chose to not be there for your son. You had the choice of be there and pay a reasonable amount of money (all the while you could be fighting what you perceive as injustice in a legal manner, but again, you chose against that, too), or to abandon. You, like so many others, chose the abandon option.That's right, "whatever means they cho[o]se". You chose. And, your choice was to fight in a manner which would separate yourself from both the physical and emotional ability to be there for your child.

I do not deny that I myself blew it for my own family and for my son as I am guilty of my own failings and etc.

And I agree that we all including myself had choices and made choices, but my point was and remains that it was not a "free" choice as the choosing in such cases was and is always done under some form of coercion or force.

You might be one of those that have never faced really hard adversities and maybe you always had easy choices, but I and many others go down a much more complicated path.

Finding a law which prescribes support for a child of your making could never, ever be construed as "honorable". Should you choose to fight the amount, or even fight the basis of the law while paying, you may find yourself in an honorable condition. "Desert"ing your child by choice, physically, financial, and emotionally could not ever be seen as honorable.

To be honored, one must be honorable.

It fits under the ideal of "hate the sin but not the sinner" or as you once put it "Hate the sin and help the sinner" so even if you see the actions as dishonorable than you do not have to then dishonor the person. That would be your choice - to be respectful to others that you do not deem as worthy.

It is an incredibly pompous position to only honor those that you deem as honorable because that is what a weak person does to those they see as their superiors. The strong person gives respect and honor to those that are unworthy, and I suggest we all become strong.

If the custodial goes out of their way to influence the child against the dishonorable parent, I would equally find that dishonorable. But, to lie to a child would fill them with visions of what actions are honorable and what are not. It is far worse to lie to the child in that manner than it is to allow the child to form their own opinion of the other parent. It is NOT the responsibility of Parent A to create a false illusion of Parent B. It is the responsibility of the Parent B to be honorable, and the child should then honor that parent.

I did not ever say to lie, and I am strictly against lying to anyone including children, and definitely against false illusions.

And I feel it is necessary to use extreme examples so considering the D.C. sniper Mr Muhammad as the separated parent, and even now his children need to go to their father's grave and morn his and their loss and they need to come to decent terms with the reality of their father's life and his death and their own legacies.

Now the custodial could degrade and insult the father in horrible ways and teach the children to feel negatively about their Dad, but to turn them into children that dishonor their Dad would not be socially or ethically beneficial to anyone.

Nor does it put the responsibility on one parent to create the illusion of honoring a dishonorable parent

CUSTODY, custody means providing the needs of the child, and the child needs to be taught to be honorable to both parents, and there is not to be any "illusion" or deceit or it is just a fraud, and a failure of custody.

And honor does not have to mean liking the person, as like in an Army Soldier hating a drill Sargent, because one still honorably solutes and follows the orders of the Sargent that is hated.

"Love thy enemy" does not mean liking thy enemy because they still are an enemy.

That is the way I view it.