So, people to cover there enterests, have continously tried to demean me, to no avail. So here is one for you to try.
Non Custodial parent means? there is no Deffinition in the United States Code, nor is there a Deffinition in the Corresponding CFR's"Code of Federal Regulations" title IV-d Agencies, are bound by the United States Code, and corresponding regulations as demanded by the Federal Admistrative Procedures Act. You state Agencies, in enrolling in Title IV'd of the Social Security Act, under the compact Clause are bound by the code and regualtions, which have no meaning(Deffinition) of a NCP.
Now there was a deffinition of an ABSENT parent, which was changed to a NCP in 1996 under Public law 104-193, 1996, Hr 3734.
Which defined an absent parent as one not in the household.
Of course the other favorite word is "Obligor" which is one who is bound by a contract,written or consentual to perform a favor, or obligation to another, a service, generaly of monetary praportion.
So what is a custodial parent, and what is a NCP, one who deosn't reside in the house? who's house?
One who has the children more of the year?
If you have children, there inherent, so is youre rights to youre children, so why ask to be granted?
Granted is permissive, its a request for what you are already entitled to.
Why ask for permission for what is morally, legaly, and inherently mine?
Granted is restrictive, open to change, not absolute.
I asked the federal department of Health and Human Services,"Administration for Families" because I know for fact no authority exists to do it ...."under what codes and corresponding regulations is there authority to make a legal gaurdian, and physical Custodian an obligor" if two people have shared custody,"Equal time with there child on paper" and both Hold more importantly LEGAL Custody of there child"Neither one above the other" then how can there be an obligor" minding you, I never consented to be an obligor"?
They won't, and cannot answer the question.
And no there is no deffinition on this state side, nor is there any written law or regulations, statuatorily, nor Administratively.
Usually means the parent who got screwed in my experience.
You are fighting a losing battle in my opinion - even though you have tons of principal to stand on.
The courts are not about what is right. It is about might. And, might makes right in our society.
You have been ordered to pay child support, that makes you the obligor. How can that be if you have equal time I don't understand.
CS and Family Court laws are archiac and ruining children's and parent's lives every day. I don't see them changing anytime soon. I love my child, but the day CS is done and I am really disconnected financially from the mother will be one of the best days of my life.
>You have been ordered to pay child support, that makes you the
>obligor. How can that be if you have equal time I don't
>understand.
It's quite simple. If you accept that the operating principle is what's best for the child, then it becomes clear.
If one spouse makes $200 K and the other makes $20 K, but they each share equally in the TIME element of parenting, it does not seem unreasonable for the wealthier parent to pay some child support.
* Nothing but a wallet to the CP, which she makes sure to reiterate to the kids constantly.
* Never notified of medical emergencies or hospital visits until after the fact when NCP found out accidently
* Not allowed to make any day to day decisions regarding the kids
* Weeks on end without returned phone calls from his kids
* Being told "if you want to see your kids, it needs to be on your nickel, not mine (since she was taking 65% of his disposable income, flying 3 kids across the US was not a cheap experience)
* Allowing boyfriends to spank and harshly discipline the kids
* "Forgetting" to send mandatory prescriptions when the skids visited, and unable to fill the prescriptions on our end
* Bad mouthing the NCP and his spouse constantly to the skids telling them that they are very bad people and losers
* Telling the skids that your financial struggles and hardships in life are a direct result of what their father did to her, and now the kids
* Father never listed on school records, live in boyfriends listed as "father"
And it goes on and on and on............
Except now it has come full circle, her youngest son lives with us.
You'd probably be a lot more successful in obtaining what you want if you didn't walk into court declaring that the judge is a criminal and that he has no right to tell you what to do. The courts have the right to enact and enforce child custody and support obligations. Period.
Just a thought.
BTW, 'non-custodial parent' is a well-understood term. The parent who has the child more nights is the custodial parent. The other is the non-custodial parent. If they have 50:50, neither is non-custodial. Whether you LIKE the definition or not is completely irrelevant.
he begged for us to get him out of her house. He was 15 at the time. We filed for custody reversal and got him out. We never expected CS to end this early. She kept 16 year old (who subsequently said he made a horrible mistake by not leaving too at the time). CS stopped.. and guess what? So has most of any type of communication between DH and BM. They have had only two conversations since December, and one conversation was for DH to confirm OSS spring break plans.
It is a wonderful feeling to have the CS stopped and to have that "disconnect". Your day will come.
and yet knowone disproved me.
You have Equal, one week here one week there,
Legal Custody, even more important, no one stands over the other.
And last but not least, my favorite, the state statutes, and the federal stautes both say support is for the custodial parent from the non custodial parent.
Rule 90.3. alaska's rule of court, made by the court, adjucateing its own rule against the public, as public law, and used by the enforceing agency as law, states, the NCP will pay the CP.
Obligor- one who has consented or signed into an agreement to afford another a benefit, a service, a monetary supplument. I didnt sign no contract nor did I consent.
Without a written true law, there is no judgement, and dont bother saying independant, thats thrown out by the cooperative agreements.
NCP- there is a lot of talk, but I havent seen a true deffinition,.
By the way its in the 9th Circuit right now, with a new one to be filed soon, Habeous
>So, people to cover there enterests, have continously tried
>to demean me, to no avail. So here is one for you to try.
>Non Custodial parent means? there is no Deffinition in the
>United States Code, nor is there a Deffinition in the
>Corresponding CFR's"Code of Federal Regulations" title IV-d
>Agencies, are bound by the United States Code, and
>corresponding regulations as demanded by the Federal
>Admistrative Procedures Act. You state Agencies, in enrolling
>in Title IV'd of the Social Security Act, under the compact
>Clause are bound by the code and regualtions, which have no
>meaning(Deffinition) of a NCP.
>
>Now there was a deffinition of an ABSENT parent, which was
>changed to a NCP in 1996 under Public law 104-193, 1996, Hr
>3734.
>Which defined an absent parent as one not in the household.
>Of course the other favorite word is "Obligor" which is one
>who is bound by a contract,written or consentual to perform a
>favor, or obligation to another, a service, generaly of
>monetary praportion.
>
>So what is a custodial parent, and what is a NCP, one who
>deosn't reside in the house? who's house?
>One who has the children more of the year?
>If you have children, there inherent, so is youre rights to
>youre children, so why ask to be granted?
>Granted is permissive, its a request for what you are already
>entitled to.
>Why ask for permission for what is morally, legaly, and
>inherently mine?
>Granted is restrictive, open to change, not absolute.
>
>I asked the federal department of Health and Human
>Services,"Administration for Families" because I know for fact
>no authority exists to do it ...."under what codes and
>corresponding regulations is there authority to make a legal
>gaurdian, and physical Custodian an obligor" if two people
>have shared custody,"Equal time with there child on paper" and
>both Hold more importantly LEGAL Custody of there
>child"Neither one above the other" then how can there be an
>obligor" minding you, I never consented to be an obligor"?
>They won't, and cannot answer the question.
>And no there is no deffinition on this state side, nor is
>there any written law or regulations, statuatorily, nor
>Administratively.
The courts have the authority to determine who has custody of the children. They prefer the parents to decide between themselves, but they do, in fact, have the authority to make the decision.
I don't necessarily agree with child support when it is a true 50/50 shared PHYSICAL custody unless the difference between the incomes is considerable.
Joint legal doesn't mean that the child even lives with you. I have joint legal with my ex. I also have residential custody of my children. I also have them the majority of the time. This is what my ex and I decided was best for our children.
The non-custodial parent (meaning the parent that the child(ren) do not live with) has a financial obligation to support the child that s/he helped bring into the world. Why should I support someone else's child? I have my own to support.
Don't want to pay child support, don't have children and/or don't get a divorce.
>and yet knowone disproved me.
>You have Equal, one week here one week there,
>Legal Custody, even more important, no one stands over the
>other.
>And last but not least, my favorite, the state statutes, and
>the federal stautes both say support is for the custodial
>parent from the non custodial parent.
>Rule 90.3. alaska's rule of court, made by the court,
>adjucateing its own rule against the public, as public law,
>and used by the enforceing agency as law, states, the NCP will
>pay the CP.
>Obligor- one who has consented or signed into an agreement to
>afford another a benefit, a service, a monetary supplument. I
>didnt sign no contract nor did I consent.
>Without a written true law, there is no judgement, and dont
>bother saying independant, thats thrown out by the cooperative
>agreements.
>
>NCP- there is a lot of talk, but I havent seen a true
>deffinition,.
>
>By the way its in the 9th Circuit right now, with a new one to
>be filed soon, Habeous
>
You haven't proven your case. So there is nothing to disprove.
Didn't say there was Joint, Joint is different than shared, so why meandor around the facts?
And like suspected of all entities you chose to ignore the more important issue
"Legal Custody) the inherent right of one to determine the enterest of the child, and to see forth the best enterst of the child, and to see the best enterest of the welfare of the child.
Establishment of my case, I have established the facts in law, in Written publicly Known Law.
NCP(allegedly defined in the codes, interpretive) "the parent not with the children"" the parent not in the same houshold as the children" (when)? well youre not with youre children when they visit youre EX, now are they.
"Obligor" one who has verbaly or writtenly excepted an obligation, to perform for another a service or monetary supplument.
Why pay support, because I choose to work?
Is not she equaly obligated? to support and contibute?
or is it just the guy?
Being is you speak of finances, please explain where in the federal child support guidelines, or under the intent of congress, under any of there ACTS, they specify its all dependant of ones income over the other.
Such an publication would show its about money, not the alleged enterest of the child.
The alleged state enterest- sorry the state cannot invoke an alleged enterest over mine, the 14th has consistently been held over the state.
No divorce here, was smart enough not to go down that created right road.
Why have children if all you want is money?
That's nice. As soon as you prove your case, then ask someone to disprove it.
Meanwhile, how long have you been fighting for your 'rights' and how much money have you invested? And what do you have to show for it?
Working within the system is almost always going to be more successful than insulting the court system that you want to get something from.
It seems that the problem is that you don't understand the difference between legal and physical custody.
Typically, 'joint' is used in conjunction with legal custody and 'shared' is used in conjunction with physical custody. When people refer to 'noncustodial parent', they're almost always referring to physical custody.
And you're barking up the wrong tree as long as you insist that the courts do not have any authority in the matter. It is quite clear that they do - both by legislation and legal precedent. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with it.
based on what?
U.S Suprem Court has constantly held that parents CP's/ and NCP's have 14th amendment rights, for which the states cannot abrogate upon.
Joint Custody and Shared custody in most states have to different meanings, there alleged to be dependant upon time.
And I understand the difference between legal and Physical obviously very well.
for which you opted as usual to not debunk, except with youre personal non founded opinion.
The alleged Authoprity you speak of comes from Written Publicly Known Law, so if it isn't written, or pubblicly known Law, then it dont exist
Adjucation, determination, an order is base upon Written law, or its void.
I find it enteresting you 2, spend more time trying to debunk fact, Written Law, upheld laws and cases, when all you speak of is youre personal exsperience.
so is it personal, or is it based on a monetary plane, for which you exspect or do receive.
I dont need to bark"as you put it" I back everything with Absolute facts and case law,
Wheres youres? youre states- the ones that are bound by contract to perform in a nature that is repugnant to the constitution and there Oaths of Professional Code of conduct.
I am working within the Alleged system,
I am following the WRITTEN PULICLY KNOWN LAW.
Useing there Written Laws
There Deffinitions
There Codes
There Statutes
There Rules of Court
There Administrative Regulations
Ever read them?
I thought your question was more of a "rhetorical" type. That is why my response was truthful about how I feel, but also tongue in cheek.
When you have kids, you know you are going to have a responsibility to provide monetary support for them for a portion of their lives. No way around it.
Lots of people have kids for the wrong reasons. Money being one of them.
You knew you were having a kid, so you did enter into an understanding of financial obligation. That justifies the obligor part.
I do believe there needs to be safeguards in place along with a regulatory body to monitor child support payments and how they are spent. When couples with children are together (married or not) usually one is responsible for managing the money. If that person managed it poorly, the other person would have the right to question them about it and determine how to best resolve any issues arising from that mismanagement. SO, a person receiving child support payment on behalf of a child they are residential or custodial parent of, SHOULD have to keep a log of how the money is spent and submit it for records. But, this is a pipe dream, so I just pay and hope that my child is getting what she needs as oppossed to what she wants and that BM is not buying too much beer and cigs on my dime (don't even want to think about what else she may be buying!).
I have to agree with mist, working with these systems always is better then against. I hold that position even though I am not even seeing my kid right now and the courts have been no help at all.
There comes a time when you have battled enough and you have to make a choice to either let it go or become a raging maniac in your pursuit of justice. I have to believe that there is a higher form of judgement out there, be it God or kharma. What you put out will come back to haunt you eventually.
Also, I can look myself in the mirror each day and know that I have done what is right without cheating, lying, using my child as a pawn or otherwise. Doing the right thing did not guarantee me or my child justice, but it has given me peace of mind.
I am not sure what you are trying to acclomplish in this battle of yours. If you have a relationship with your child, then believe me, you have won the battle and no amount of money paid out is worth giving that up.
I dont disagree with that at all, and yes i am working within the sytem, did you not read post #13, everything I am doing is by there Writeen laws, regs, statutes and rules of court.
Everyone takes on the legal financial repsonsibility of there children or should, everyone, not just ONE person, in this case a man, or in other situated cases a woman, good freind of mine has her children 90 percent of the time and yet pays support to a man who chooses not to work, same in my case.
so either its equal, and we all stand equal or we dont,
Which one is it?
Wheres the equal protection of the laws
State and judge Admitted there is now law, or precedence for what they did to me, so please explain how am I operating outside the system.
I cannot answer this for you. I know I got screwed and I see no way to get the matter corrected.
There is no equality. The family courts are making decisions based on their PERSONAL feelings in these matters, not based on law, facts, or evidence. So, this is why you have the system as messed up as it is. This also supports the GAL, custody evaluators, therapist, industries that are all tied to this system and benefit greatly off of our ongoing cases. I've done all I can to end my involvement in the fiasco. It is a no-win situation for me.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with your filings. What are you asking for? Getting them to admit they were wrong an apologize? Fat chance. Getting unjust rulings reversed? Fat Chance. Even when they admit they are wrong, most times they aren't willing to do anything to right it.
I just don't see what battle you are waging here. Letting the anger consume you can push some people to extreme measures. I for one, chose to step out of that mind set for my own sanity.
It is a screwed up world we live in. We are years away from the revolution that will be required to bring any type of tangible change. Will I live that long? Who knows, but I'd love to see it happen!
naw no anger, got arid of that a long time ago, learned to be passive, and just use facts not emotions.
trying to prove, hmmm.
Well there is to many issues to list here
Will I win, Yeah ill'e win, its all a matter of time, only one court left to go
Every case law, approximately 100 cases I used for various reason, were all U.S Supreme Court Cases, kinda hard not win on that., epsecialy the written law.
Cooperative agreements, a very big issue, and it is my heart to my case, "Cooperative Federalism"
King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 21 32, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118
King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2133, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 542, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 1729, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 (1972).
The construction of a compact sanctioned by Congress under the compact clause of the Constitution presents a federal question. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 3.
The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that "No state shall, without the Consent of Congress[,] ••• enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State••••" U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 3. "By vesting in Congress the power to grant or withhold consent, or to condition consent on the States' compliance with specified conditions
I hope you end up the exception to the rule and that justice is done.
I have accepted that this will never be the case for me. I don't have the financial resources or the mental stamina to go through this anymore. My child is in full blown PAS (end stages), and has taken on the behaviors of the alienating parent. Not only am I not seeing my child, no one in my family is receiving any contact and that has not always been the case.
So, I am not arguing with you. It warms my heart when things are done right or a wrong gets undone.
Good luck in your battle. However, I still am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I hope you are able to maintain your relationship with your child though.
every other week, and sometimes even more he's here, its good like it 's should and supposed to be.
>based on what?
>
>U.S Suprem Court has constantly held that parents CP's/ and
>NCP's have 14th amendment rights, for which the states cannot
>abrogate upon.
>Joint Custody and Shared custody in most states have to
>different meanings, there alleged to be dependant upon time.
>
>And I understand the difference between legal and Physical
>obviously very well.
>for which you opted as usual to not debunk, except with youre
>personal non founded opinion.
>
>The alleged Authoprity you speak of comes from Written
>Publicly Known Law, so if it isn't written, or pubblicly known
>Law, then it dont exist
>Adjucation, determination, an order is base upon Written law,
>or its void.
>
>I find it enteresting you 2, spend more time trying to debunk
>fact, Written Law, upheld laws and cases, when all you speak
>of is youre personal exsperience.
>so is it personal, or is it based on a monetary plane, for
>which you exspect or do receive.
>
>I dont need to bark"as you put it" I back everything with
>Absolute facts and case law,
>Wheres youres? youre states- the ones that are bound by
>contract to perform in a nature that is repugnant to the
>constitution and there Oaths of Professional Code of conduct.
>
>
You haven't proven your case. Or you wouldn't have had to appeal a second time.
The facts don't back up your argument.
You re obviously not familiar with the states, and there only one guise they have to keeping the lid on things, ie..getting away with things they have no authority to
The Rooker Feildman Doctrine, a poorly conceived Opinion from a judge on a case of jurisdiction, from which the states have been useing to keep issues of law from reaching the federal court, fro which the U.S Supreme Court finialy denounced
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Has no Application in Clugston's Case.
The Rooker-Feldman was finally interred as stated in Lance v. Dennis, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 1204 (dissenting opinion 2006), to wit:
Last Term, in Justice GINSBURG's lucid opinion in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), the Court finally interred the so-called "Rooker-Feldman doctrine." And today, the Court quite properly disapproves of the District Court's resuscitation of a doctrine that has *1204 produced nothing but mischief for 23 years. [Emphasis added]
Hint/ Youre sure set on disproving me/ I surely question why?
unless of course this will have a negative impact upon youre benefits.
Either way, no one is above the WRITTEN LAW, and no one is ever above the Organic law of the United States and the Several States.
>You re obviously not familiar with the states, and there only
>one guise they have to keeping the lid on things, ie..getting
>away with things they have no authority to
>The Rooker Feildman Doctrine, a poorly conceived Opinion from
>a judge on a case of jurisdiction, from which the states have
>been useing to keep issues of law from reaching the federal
>court, fro which the U.S Supreme Court finialy denounced
>Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Has no Application in Clugston's
>Case.
> The Rooker-Feldman was finally interred as stated in Lance v.
>Dennis, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 1204 (dissenting opinion 2006), to
>wit:
>Last Term, in Justice GINSBURG's lucid opinion in Exxon Mobil
>Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct.
>1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), the Court finally interred the
>so-called "Rooker-Feldman doctrine." And today, the Court
>quite properly disapproves of the District Court's
>resuscitation of a doctrine that has *1204 produced nothing
>but mischief for 23 years. [Emphasis added]
>
>Hint/ Youre sure set on disproving me/ I surely question
>why?
>unless of course this will have a negative impact upon youre
>benefits.
>Either way, no one is above the WRITTEN LAW, and no one is
>ever above the Organic law of the United States and the
>Several States.
>
I am very familiar with my state's child support laws.
I am not setting out to disprove anything as you haven't proven anything to disprove.
The WRITTEN LAW states that the non-custodial parent (ncp being the parent with less overnights than the CP) is obligated to pay child support.
Benefits? Child support isn't a benefit to me. It is a benefit to my CHILDREN. Hence why it is called child support.
Looks to me like Leon isn't interested in supporting his kids so he's going to all sorts of bizarre extremes to try to get out of it.
I hope they've got a mother who takes care of them.
>Looks to me like Leon isn't interested in supporting his kids
>so he's going to all sorts of bizarre extremes to try to get
>out of it.
>
>I hope they've got a mother who takes care of them.
I hope so, as well. The money he is spending fighting the law could be better spent on the children, saved for their college or something else.
typical response. hate to dissapoint you but I have my child, and like I said ime operating within the sytem useing there laws, there regs and there codes.
Ime supporting my child while he's at both houses, Uh wait thats how its supposed to be isn't it?
youre cinicalness shows youre true disregaurd for other people except for youreselves.
Which part of equal protection of the laws dont you understand, and which part did you not understand that in Alaska as many other states there is no law for Equal Custody.
Oh wait thats not for youre favor, so you dont like it, funny how all you can do is insult, thorugh out false presumptions and accusations, but yet cannot cite anything to back it up.
Money? what Money, I havent degraded myself to have someone else pretend there representing me.
Money for there college, hmm, oh you mean for another person that doesn't want to work,"his mother"
Sorry girls, youre playing with the wrong info, and intentionaly misleading lots of people.
>typical response. hate to dissapoint you but I have my child,
>and like I said ime operating within the sytem useing there
>laws, there regs and there codes.
>Ime supporting my child while he's at both houses, Uh wait
>thats how its supposed to be isn't it?
>youre cinicalness shows youre true disregaurd for other people
>except for youreselves.
>Which part of equal protection of the laws dont you
>understand, and which part did you not understand that in
>Alaska as many other states there is no law for Equal
>Custody.
>Oh wait thats not for youre favor, so you dont like it, funny
>how all you can do is insult, thorugh out false presumptions
>and accusations, but yet cannot cite anything to back it up.
>Money? what Money, I havent degraded myself to have someone
>else pretend there representing me.
>Money for there college, hmm, oh you mean for another person
>that doesn't want to work,"his mother"
>Sorry girls, youre playing with the wrong info, and
>intentionaly misleading lots of people.
What part of LAW do you not understand? I am not the one who is cynical.
Do I think that you should be paying child support if you have your child an equal amount of time and make around the same as the other parent? No, I don't.
But I don't know all of the facts of your case (just what you are attempting to pass off as facts), for all I know, you could be making triple what the other parent is making.
So you are representing yourself? That is scary considering how lacking your posts are in correct spelling and grammar.
College for your child.
enteresting reponse, the same could righfully be questioned about you, but it serves no purpose.
You choose to attack me for being a man, plain and simple, grammer and spelling, thats the best you can come up with?
Like I said I am useing there Written laws, but since the whole thing has to do with revenue for the state, as Stated under section 3.1 "Court agreements" Cooperative Agreements, as mandated under title 42 u.s.c, the corresponding reg"CFR's" title 45, and sub sec. 654-669"
as required under title IV-d of the Social Security Act.
Short of that, you bring nothing to this conversation, so good day, and Jade maybe you should quit misleading people, black and white, isn't all there is, and its all there, because you dont,can't or choose not to understand it, is no falut of mine or anyones elses.
And Deffinately stop bashing people that dont credit youre line of interpretation, or serve in youre favor, it's quite unbecoming.
>enteresting reponse, the same could righfully be questioned
>about you, but it serves no purpose.
>You choose to attack me for being a man, plain and simple,
>grammer and spelling, thats the best you can come up with?
>Like I said I am useing there Written laws, but since the
>whole thing has to do with revenue for the state, as Stated
>under section 3.1 "Court agreements" Cooperative Agreements,
>as mandated under title 42 u.s.c, the corresponding reg"CFR's"
>title 45, and sub sec. 654-669"
>as required under title IV-d of the Social Security Act.
>
>Short of that, you bring nothing to this conversation, so good
>day, and Jade maybe you should quit misleading people, black
>and white, isn't all there is, and its all there, because you
>dont,can't or choose not to understand it, is no falut of mine
>or anyones elses.
>And Deffinately stop bashing people that dont credit youre
>line of interpretation, or serve in youre favor, it's quite
>unbecoming.
The same spelling and grammar problem could be said about me? I seriously doubt it. By the way, if you write your own pleadings and there are problems with grammar and spelling, it could seriously have a negative impact on your case.
I am not the one misleading people. And my problem with you has nothing to do with you being a man. But the misinformation that you spread.
You are asking us to disprove something that you haven't proven.
The law is quite simple, you have a child, you support it.
Exactly. I don't know why he doesn't get this.
And you're right on the money on his grammar ans spelling. In some cases, it's just annoying, but in some cases it's almost impossible to figure out what he's saying.
Amazing that he's managed to let some chip on his shoulder run his life.
which I do support, for which said child I do have, for which said child I support at both households.
Do you?
at all?
at both households?
No disinformation from me at all, in fact you haven't even tried to disprove anything.
The same applied to you- how do I/we know that youre situation is truethfull?
funny that neither one of you openly deny youre enterest or outcomes of said information, nor did or do you deny that you openly attacked me for being a male, nor did you or do you deny/ disprove anything that I have posted, nor have I seen any laws or cases from either of you to disprove me and, or credit what you are saying.
Opinions over facts/laws, hmm wonder which one would stand in a Article III court.
The greatest illusion ever created was the illusion itself.
No one attacked you for being male.
If you can't even get the simplest facts straight, there's no point to further discussion.
Go ahead and delude yourself. But be sure that every time you tell someone that the state has no right to control custody or support, I'm going to correct you.
End of discussion.
you have corrected nor presented nothing, except bashing me with opinions and no facts, except to better serve youre self enterest.
Everything I presented was/is absolute FACT, for which you have not and cannot prove otherwise. Nor did you even try.
And youre right there is no point to further discussion, for it would, does not serve youre special enterest
You know, if you'd learn to write comprehensible sentences, maybe people could understand you.
You mean the FACT like your accusation that people were attacking you because you're male - which 'fact' you now seem to be running away from?
this conversation is old, and youre intent has proven to be Bias
Notice you chose also to not respond, to me haveing my child and supporting to households, except to make baseless accusations, and mislead the truth.
There is without doubt, no need to continue, you bring nothing to the table, except for what you whish to benefit from, and nothing to back it up.
>you have corrected nor presented nothing, except bashing me
>with opinions and no facts, except to better serve youre self
>enterest.
>
>Everything I presented was/is absolute FACT, for which you
>have not and cannot prove otherwise. Nor did you even try.
>
>And youre right there is no point to further discussion, for
>it would, does not serve youre special enterest
You haven't proven that what you are presenting is absolute fact.
My interests aren't served by "bashing" you. My interests were represented by a family law attorney who actually knows what the law is.
I don't have to disprove something that you have not proven.
>this conversation is old, and youre intent has proven to be
>Bias
>
The only one biased here is you.
>Notice you chose also to not respond, to me haveing my child
>and supporting to households, except to make baseless
>accusations, and mislead the truth.
You can add reading comprehension problems to your problems with grammar and spelling. Clearly, if you had comprehended my statement that I don't think that child support should be paid by either parent when it is a true 50/50 physical custody situation and the incomes are around the same.
>
>There is without doubt, no need to continue, you bring nothing
>to the table, except for what you whish to benefit from, and
>nothing to back it up.
You are right, there is no need to continue, you haven't proven your case and you clearly have a huge chip on shoulders.
Leon, I've been reading this thread, and I have to say that it's very difficult to decipher what you're trying to say because of the grammer and spelling in your posts. I think you have some valid posts, but I think it would be a lot easier for people to read them, and offer support and advice, if you could find a way to make these easier for people to read.
If you have access to Microsoft Word, Outlook, or any e-mail application that offers a spell-check feature, you could cut and paste your posts into that and check the spelling and grammer before posting. It's a bit time consuming, but you may find you get a better response that way.
Good luck to you.
I will try to per youre respectfull post to clean up things.
And I duefully respect youre opinion.
who was makeing baseless accusation?
you were.
i did read youre opinion on the 50/50 split.
however such was then backed up, with that it was of youre opinion I wasn't supporting my child.
and furthered it was of question if such order of custody existed?
Why avert towards a agreement of unfairness, then turn torwards an opinion of ones custody, without merit.?
To prove a case, you have to establish fact, Done, However when dealing with certain entities, and Hundreds of thousands of dollare at stake" the state stands to lose for not following the written law, and for fileing frauduelnt leins when no valid order with an Obligor Existed, then there is a wall for which goes up.
In such certain case, the courts have simpily just refused to answer on the merits, its nothing new, it happens a lot.
When the state refuses to compell on public record the Alleged Law,
Admits on public record" 3pa-03-1454" there is no law for such an application, but still wants an Obligor/NCP, Absent parent,,,then who is wrong?
Order states clearly, both Parents have Equal Physical custody, and Equal Legal Custody....
Judge admits there is no law to compell me,
Ag admits there is no law to compell me
Agency still contends, I am a NCP "even though it is clearly established in record I am a Custodial Parent"
So who is wrong?
Me for following the Written Publicly known law\
or them?
Either way, I will post Facts, and from now on i will cite the cases, codes and what not,,,,and people can make there own intelligable decisions from such
>who was makeing baseless accusation?
>you were.
>i did read youre opinion on the 50/50 split.
>however such was then backed up, with that it was of youre
>opinion I wasn't supporting my child.
That leap probably hurt you.
>and furthered it was of question if such order of custody
>existed?
>Why avert towards a agreement of unfairness, then turn
>torwards an opinion of ones custody, without merit.?
>
>To prove a case, you have to establish fact, Done,
No, you haven't done this.
However
>when dealing with certain entities, and Hundreds of thousands
>of dollare at stake" the state stands to lose for not
>following the written law, and for fileing frauduelnt leins
>when no valid order with an Obligor Existed, then there is a
>wall for which goes up.
>
Yes, that wall is called the LAW.
>In such certain case, the courts have simpily just refused to
>answer on the merits, its nothing new, it happens a lot.
>When the state refuses to compell on public record the Alleged
>Law,
>Admits on public record" 3pa-03-1454" there is no law for such
>an application, but still wants an Obligor/NCP, Absent
>parent,,,then who is wrong?
>Order states clearly, both Parents have Equal Physical
>custody, and Equal Legal Custody....
>Judge admits there is no law to compell me,
>Ag admits there is no law to compell me
>Agency still contends, I am a NCP "even though it is clearly
>established in record I am a Custodial Parent"
>
>So who is wrong?
>Me for following the Written Publicly known law\
>or them?
>
>Either way, I will post Facts, and from now on i will cite the
>cases, codes and what not,,,,and people can make there own
>intelligable decisions from such
The problem is that you don't post facts. You post your opinion and pass it off as a fact.
A perfect example of this is when you stated that by federal law, they can only withhold 50% of one's income in child support.
Which is only partially correct. It is 50% for married individuals (with an additional 5% if there are arrears) and 60% for unmarried individuals (with an additional 5% if there are arrears). You can get a copy of that law at your local child support office.
The parents are LEGALLY obligated to support their minor child(ren). The government (both federal and state) have an interest in enforcing this. Because if they don't, the government will be the one supporting the child(ren). Which would force taxpayers who aren't the parents to support someone else's child(ren).
I am sorry that you have a problem comprehending the FACT that parents are LEGALLY obligated to support their child(ren). But that doesn't change the LAW.
I never disagreed that the parents are legaly. moraly repsonsible, obligated
that was youre imput somewhere that I said they weren't
I explained in detail, the case at hand,
No one denys the facts, the courts dont and neither does the state
Nor do they deny the cooperative agreements, they cannot, when there signatures are attached, nor do they deny that they are bound by the federal codes, and implementing CFR's.
And what law, do you refer to, it was established "at the case at hand" there was no law, per the judge, the AG, and the Agency, to make me a obligor" 50/50 custody split"
Facts---
Most welfare decisions by federal courts have a financial*681 impact on the States. Under the existing federal-state cooperative system, a state desiring to participate, submits a 'state plan' to HEW for approval; once HEW approves the plan the State is locked into the cooperative scheme until it withdraws, FN3 all as described in **1365 King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 21 32, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118
Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442, held that under this state-federal cooperative program a State could not reduce its standard of need in conflict with the federal standard.
In its contacts with the Social Security Act's assistance programs in recent years, the Court has frequently described the Act as a 'scheme of cooperative federalism.' See, e.g., King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2133, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 542, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 1729, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 (1972).
The construction of a compact sanctioned by Congress under the compact clause of the Constitution presents a federal question. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 3.
The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that "No state shall, without the Consent of Congress[,] ••• enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State••••" U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 3. "By vesting in Congress the power to grant or withhold consent, or to condition consent on the States' compliance with specified conditions
Code of Federal Regulations Currentness
Title 45. Public Welfare
Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Public Welfare
Chapter III. Office of Child Support Enforcement (Child Support Enforcement Program), Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (Refs & Annos)
Part 303. Standards for Program Operations (Refs & Annos)
§ 303.107 Requirements for cooperative arrangements.
The State must ensure that all cooperative arrangements:
(a) Contain a clear description of the specific duties, functions and responsibilities of each party;
b) Specify clear and definite standards of performance which meet Federal requirements;
(c) Specify that the parties will comply with title IV-D of the Act, implementing Federal regulations and any other applicable Federal regulations and requirements.
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 663, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 7. Social Security (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter IV. Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and for Child-Welfare Services (Refs & Annos)
Part D. Child Support and Establishment of Paternity (Refs & Annos)
§ 666. Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement
(a) Types of procedures required
In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures, consistent with this section and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program which the State administers under this part:
4) Liens
Procedures under which--
(A) liens arise by operation of law against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support owed by a ""noncustodial parent ""who resides or owns property in the State; and
(B) the State accords full faith and credit to liens described in subparagraph (A) arising in another State, when the State agency, party, or other entity seeking to enforce such a lien complies with the ""procedural rules"" relating to recording or serving liens that arise within the State, except that such rules may not require judicial notice or hearing prior to the enforcement of such a lien.
Anything Else you might want to add.?
>Anything Else you might want to add.?
Sure. How about:
1. In spite of repeated requests, you STILL haven't stated what you think the system should be. From the above, it appears that you think that if 3 states are involved that each of them should collect support and not give credit to the other states. JUST WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?
2. You still haven't backed up your accusations that Jade and I were attacking you simply because you're male.
3. You still need to take some spelling and grammar lessons to make your posts comprehensible.
1. it appears that you think that if 3 states are involved that each of them should collect support and not give credit to the other states. JUST WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?----Where in the Heck did you come up with that one
2. You still haven't backed up your accusations that Jade and I were attacking you simply because you're male.-----ok lets see,,,hmm Leon doesn't support his children after it was well etsbalished that I do,,,and Leon probably doesn't even have his children,,,,Dont know what you call it,,nor did you deny them
3. to be in a forum, and youre more worried about spelling and grammer, than fact,,
You are who you are, its fine, however if you choose to continiously attack me, but then exspect the same in youre posts, for one, what happens, or is law in youre state realy has no application in any other state, but personaly I dont see attacking one anothers posts as doing the public anygood, but hey, its youre game.
I see you don't have a rational response to any of my questions.
Figures.
HINT:
1. Your position is unclear. I asked you to clarify. You are unable to do so.
2. Saying that you may not support your children has nothing to do with your allegation that we were male-bashing.
3. I'm concerned about facts, too (see above). But one of those facts is that your spelling and grammar is so atrocious that it's impossible to figure out exacly what you're saying. When your spelling and grammar is so bad that it interferes with the message, then you have a problem.
I have run into the same issue. It's not what you think. It is not cut and dried. I think that it depends on your gender.
(WA) State law states (lol) that there is a magical determination of the "custodian" by some law enforcement entity that can ascertain the custodian without evidence of the parenting time of the children.
see: http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=35&X=304020159&p=1
"In the absence of such a designation, the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside the majority of the time shall be deemed to be the custodian of the child for the purposes of such federal and state statutes."
There are no forms which request the parenting time involved for the above scenario. No schedule to determine which parent should be deemed the custodian of the child. Correcting this could help prevent parental kidnapping...but.... I'm just confused. I don't know what I'm reading.
So... the question is: Is the Department of Child Support Enforcement illegally determining the custody of a child?
in some cases, YES, they are illegaly Administratively determining custody. Agencies are purely investigatorial, they hold no executive or judicial powers, nor do they have that majic Quasi judicial power they drempt up.
The inherent rights of the People, mother/fathers, married/divorced are secured rights, untill they consent to enter into a court to have a created fictatious right, a "GRANTED" right, why in the heck would anyone want a Granted right, over a absolute right,thats another story.
in more cases than not, the state establishes an Obligor, non-custodial parent, absent parent, and contrary to final determinations of custody, that person still retains that status, even though in many cases, they no longer fall under the deffinitions or qualifications of such said status.
>in some cases, YES, they are illegaly Administratively
>determining custody.
Your opinion.
Until the courts settle this issue, it is incorrect to state that what they are doing is illegal.
Agencies are purely investigatorial
they hold no executive or judicial authority
In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 527, 18 S.Ct. 418, 426, 42 L.Ed. 819, the court said: 'The idea that any legislature, state or federal, can conclusively determine for the people and for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law, or what it authorizes its agents to do, is consistent with the fundamental law, is in opposition to the theory of our institutions. The duty rests upon all courts, federal and state, when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to see to it that no right secured by the supreme law of the land is impaired or destroyed by legislation.'
Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 44, 44 S.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. 549. The court held that delegation of pure legislative power is unconstitutional and said that, in creating such an administrative agency the legislature, to prevent its being a pure delegation of legislative power, must enjoin upon it a certain course of procedure and certain rules of decision and that the agency must pursue the procedure and rules and show substantial compliance therewith to give validity to its action. The court held also the lack of an express finding could not be supplied by inference
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary *66 function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166, 64 S.Ct. 438.
In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), the Supreme Court suggested by way of dictum that an administrative agency which enjoys subpoena powers of the kind enjoyed by the Secretary cannot "under our system of government, and consistently with due process of law, be invested with authority to compel obedience to its orders by a judgment of fine or imprisonment." 154 U.S. at 485, 14 S.Ct. at 1136.
To say that the test of equal protection should be the 'legal' rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue. For the Equal Protection Clause necessarily limits the authority of a State to draw such 'legal' lines as it chooses.' Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73, 75-76, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 1516, 20 L.Ed.2d 441 (1968)
'It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the **1213 state can neither supply nor hinder.' Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944).
offices and officers
In the adjudged decision of State v. Hawkins, 257 P. 411, 413-418 (Sup. Ct. Mont. 1927) is an exhaustive examination of the essential elements to be a "public Officer" of a civil nature in any of the several States and the requirements pertaining to the creation of an "Office" in any of the several States based upon the holdings of many decisions of numerous courts of the several States which are omitted for brevity, but are relied upon, and this holding is ibid at 418, to wit:
After an exhaustive examination of the authorities, we hold that five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature: (1) It must be created by the Constitution or by the Legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the Legislature; (2) it must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public; (3) the powers conferred, and the duties to be discharged, must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the Legislature or through legislative authority; (4) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power, other than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or authorized by the Legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior officer or body; (5) it must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only temporary or occasional. In addition, in this state, an officer must take and file an official oath, hold a commission or other written authority, and give an official bond, if the latter be required by proper authority. [Emphasis added
Nonetheless, until a court rules on the issue, you are incorrect in claiming that the States are behaving in illegal behavior.
You've made it clear that you THINK that the states are behaving illegally, but that's meaningless until the courts rule that way. Anyone following your advice runs the risk of hurting themselves immensely considering that there's an immense amount of legislation and case law which opposes your opinion.
I posted fact, with cases to support, from the U.S Supreme Court, not my opinion. There is no Think, or opinion from me, only youre's, created by youre self enterest, rather directly or indirectly, pecuinary, or equitable.
Case law against? Hmmm, is someone wearing a ficititious title under there name. It would greatly explain there motives for halfheartedly trying to sway the facts.
My alleged advice, is backed with the cases to supprt, from which anyone can gather info from, and then draw there own conclusion on how to proceed.
I have yet to see you post one law, statute or code, with a corresponding regulation, and I have yet to see you post one case, of any court,
No, you haven't provided a Supreme Court case which supports your position. Instead, you've provided Supreme Court cases which you then pretend apply to the situation of child support and custody. There's a HUGE difference.
Until the courts say that they apply to custody and support, they don't. And the fact that many thousands of courts around the country and 50 legislatures do NOT believe that your cases apply means that your position is tenuous, at best.
Today, we have mountains of case law and legislation that say that the States DO have a right to regulate custody and child support on one side. On your side, we have some Supreme Court cases which you THINK apply to child support and custody.
The prudent thing is to follow the law as written and interpreted by the courts rather than your speculation.
Quote -"The prudent thing is to follow the law as written and interpreted by the courts rather than your speculation."
"Interpreted"--a thought an opinion,
Written law,,,agencies have no executive or judicial power,,Nor do they hold any authority to establish custody,,,they are fact finders, investigatorial,,of course one can consent there status to them, for which no harm can be held, however without that consent of ones status, then there is no authority to proceed.
Opinion, yeah you seem to have that a lot, might be that self enterest of youres.
Being I dont get paid, to misdirect, nor do I gain from misdirection I realy have no broad enterest in the outcome of other peoples misfortunes, nor do I directly or indirectly prosper from there actions.
Agencies have a direct pecuinary enterest in every case before them, as do the Employees that work for them.
At least my postings is researchable with the correct cites.
Since your grammar is so bad, perhaps you didn't see "interpreted BY THE COURTS". The courts have the right to interpret the law and make it stick. Therefore a court interpretation is valid. Your interprtetation is not, unless you can get the court to affirm your interpretation.
The facts are simple - every one of the states has legislation wrt child support and custody. The courts in every single state affirm that right be adjudicating custody and support cases.
On the other hand, you BELIEVE that you're correctly interpreting some Supreme Court cases and BELIEVE that all 50 states and all those thousands of courts are just plain wrong. Sorry, but that doesn't carry any weight. If and when you get the Supreme Court to agree with you that your intepretation is valid, people will listen.
Your citatations are meaningless since none of them directly support your case without a lot of twisting and stretching. Since the courts and state legislators in every single state continue to handle custody and support issues, no one seems to believe that you've proven anything.
>Quote -"The prudent thing is to follow the law as written and
>interpreted by the courts rather than your speculation."
>
>"Interpreted"--a thought an opinion,
>Written law,,,agencies have no executive or judicial
>power,,Nor do they hold any authority to establish
>custody,,,they are fact finders, investigatorial,,of course
>one can consent there status to them, for which no harm can be
>held, however without that consent of ones status, then there
>is no authority to proceed.
>
Until the Supreme Court actually agrees with your OPINION that the case laws that you stated apply to custody and child support (which I highly doubt it will), it is only your OPINION that it does.
still nothing to back youre opinion.
Interpretation--in mysty's quote of the courts interpreting
my alleged opinion, as you put it, was backed with support wheres youres.
All i have seen is youre opinions, with nothing to support.
But being youre self enterest and laziness to do youre homework, I see neither of you brought any facts or case to rebut what i posted, all I see is nothing but youre one sided opinions.
And this ending issue had nothing to do with my case it was a response to a question entered by another.
First, you need to learn to read and write the English language. The above is completely incomprehensible.
Second, as soon as a court confirms your opinion that the States have no right to determine custody or support issues, let us know. Until then, it's nothing more than your uninformed opinion.
>still nothing to back youre opinion.
>Interpretation--in mysty's quote of the courts interpreting
>my alleged opinion, as you put it, was backed with support
>wheres youres.
>All i have seen is youre opinions, with nothing to support.
>But being youre self enterest and laziness to do youre
>homework, I see neither of you brought any facts or case to
>rebut what i posted, all I see is nothing but youre one sided
>opinions.
>And this ending issue had nothing to do with my case it was a
>response to a question entered by another.
>
Your opinion isn't backed up by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were to hear the case and actually agree with you, then please post that. Until then, it is your opinion and your intepretation of laws that you think back you up.
The fact that you haven't won backs up my opinion.
I don't have to disprove anything you say until you have actually proven what you say. Which you haven't.
sounds more like youre opinion.
Good Stuff
I like it. I'll investigate into this a little more.
Mistoffolees quoted and replied:
--------------
>in some cases, YES, they are illegaly Administratively
>determining custody.
Your opinion.
Until the courts settle this issue, it is incorrect to state that what they are doing is illegal.
-------------
Beg to differ on this.
A different scenario, off topic but with similiarities.
Setting:
Black Hills in South Dakota
("Child" of the earth -- Holy Land to Native Americans)
Given to Native Americans in a Treaty in 1868.
There was gold found in "them thar hills" and the treaty was illegally broken by Non-Natives. The land (custody) was illegaly taken for profit, Gold (CS). The Native Americans stated all along that the land and all that it held for them was illegaly taken.
The Supreme Court LATER (100 years or so) agreed with Native American Tribes and the U.S. was ordered to pay the Native Americans a monetary settlement. The Native-Americans still want the land back, and have refused the money. The money sits in "trust" accounts.
Point being.... It's was illegal the entire time and still is illegaly withheld from the non-custodial "Injun" (Deadbeat Dad).
It is illegal to steal a bike, even if you don't get caught, arrested, and sentenced.
But it is just my opinion. I can be opinionated.
To answer the question that I posed, and this is just my opinion:
I believe that in a few cases that the State of Washington, specifically, is illegally allowing the Department of Child Support Enforcement to break that specific treaty, I mean that specific Revised Code of Washington (RCW). But I do understand that the RCW is not the law, per se, but the law is, more specifically, the "Interpretation" of the R.C.W. by the courts. Technically, however, I think I have a hook.
But who really cares.
Agencies are fact finders,
Imagine one person,"yes a agency can consist of one person" being youre judge and jury, Administrative determinations, Administrative reviews, take place without youre presence, without youre 5th amendment right, without youre right to accounter, and or to deposition.
A couple of things come to quick mind-Denial of Due Process
Usurpation of the Judicial Courts
And in such cases, usurpation of the Executive branch, since there operating on Administrative laws, which have no effect on the general public, or more correctly can not be used as public law.
Seperation of powers and etc...
I understand.
He/She [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge](Administrative Law Judge)[/a] is determining the custody/custodian/custodial parent WITHOUT A SCHEDULE to go by in the rush to get money (and matching funds for the administration from the feds) for the custodial custodian with custody from the non-custodial meal ticket without a clue.
>I understand.
>
>He/She [a
>href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge](Administrative
>Law Judge)[/a] is determining the custody/custodian/custodial
>parent WITHOUT A SCHEDULE to go by in the rush to get money
>(and matching funds for the administration from the feds) for
>the custodial custodian with custody from the non-custodial
>meal ticket without a clue.
I think you're missing the entire point.
No one is denying that the courts and even state administrations are determining custody. Of course this happens - hundreds of thousands or millions of times a year.
The issue is that leon is insisting that this is illegal and whenever someone asks for advice, he jumps in with his second grade spelling and grammar to say that the states have no right to do that and that they should fight the states to take control of their own lives.
Jade and I are pointing out that there is massive case law and precedent that the states have the right to control custody and support. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, leon's pretending that he's quoting the real law is just hot aiir.
Someone facing a custody and support issue with a state would be a fool to walk in and tell them that they have no right to determine custody or support because leon gave them some arguments. No matter how little you like it, the current law of the land supports the states' rights to determine custody and support. Period.
And like usual you spouted youre mouth off without understanding what ime talking about.
You keep on stateing massive case law precedent, but have yet to present one.
Nor do you deny that agencies are fact finders, nor do you deny that they have no judical authority.
Ive said it before and ille say it again, I have no special enterest in anyones elses case, but YOU sure do.
Do you deny that States and courts determine custody and support every single day?
As long as States and courts are determining custody and support every day, THAT is the prevailing law.
YOU have the burden of proof of showing that they don't, not me. And your wishes don't count. You need a Supreme Court ruling which specifically states that States and Courts are not allowed to determine support and custody.
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a Supreme Corut ruling that says that. Until they do, you're wrong.
and you got lost in the discussion. He was talking about administrative determinations of custody, not Judicial Decisions by a court, big Difference, and there is a big differrence in prevailing law on the two.
But being you spend so much time trying to discredit me, you didn't bother to read thoroughly
I read it just fine. You're simply refusing to acknowledge reality because it conflicts with your delusions.
As I said, the States (including administrators like the one you're complaining about) do this every day. There are thousands of situations like this.
By approving these decisions, the courts are affirming the legality.
Until the Supreme Court says it's wrong, it's the law. Period.
No matter how much you whine or fantasize, the law as interpreted by every state and every court in the nation is that the states have the right to make that administrative decision.
show me where an administrator for an Agency has any statutorial authority, with a correpsonding CFR's, or administartive regulation to decide custody outside of a court without a hearing.
Once again, you've demonstrated that you're so blinded by your delusions that you won't even consider the facts.
Agency administrators do this routinely and the courts support it. It happens all the time - which is exactly what you're complaining about. If it doesn't happen, then your silly crusade is meaningless.
It happens and the courts allow it to happen. That makes it the current law - until you can prove otherwise. Since it's so widely prevalent in every court in the country and every state in the nation, it would take a strongly worded Supreme Court ruling to stop it. So far, that hasn't happened.
Your delusions notwithstanding, of course.
Well ime glad we settled that you have nothing to support youre claims, nor do you deny youre self enterst in everyones elses affiars.
1. Learn to read and write the English language if you want to be taken seriously.
2. I don't have any self-interest in anyone else's affairs. Since you're the one claiming I do, you need to prove it. I don't have any obligation to disprove all the blowhard claims from delusional fanatics.
3. I've already supported my claims. The fact that every single court in every single state does what you're complaining about is pretty strong evidence that you're wrong.
4. You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that supports your claim that state agencies don't have any right to settle custody or support matters. All you've provided is a number of completely unrelated cases that have never been applied to this situation by the courts.
You lose. Again.
>Well ime glad we settled that you have nothing to support
>youre claims, nor do you deny youre self enterst in everyones
>elses affiars.
The only thing that is settled is that you haven't proven your case.
And that you are letting your own self interest guide your intepretation of laws that you THINK pertain to your situation.
being that you are without 1st hand knowledge to my case you are without merit or fact to speak of it.
I dont think I have ever seen anywhere but here, 2 people, "jade""Misty" so bent on disinforming the public, circumnavigating the facts, and outright distrorting the facts,as you TWO.
I have to prove nothing, especialy to TWO entities that have a self proscribed enterest in the outcome of other peoples affairs.
The people, "public" have there own right to read what is presented, and then to draw there own conclusion upon the facts, and choose how to proceed there from.
You speak of case's and alleged law, but yet forget to mention every time the states and the agencies get caught with there hands outside there statutorial authoritzed authority, the 1st thing they do is claim 11th immunity, to save themselves from prosecution.
Hmmm..golly geezzzzz
I'm just curious what vested interest you think that Jade and I have in your case or anyone else's case about here.
None of your inane ramblings, just stick to the question. What is this vested interest?
Equally important, what is a 'self-proscribed' vested interest? That would mean that we don't allow ourselves to have a vested interested - which is completely opposite of what you seem to be claiming. Just one more example of where your grammar and spelling are so bad that any message you might have gets lost.
Now, answer the question. What vested interest do you think Jade and I have in these cases?
The more correct question would be, who are you, or who do you claim to be.
Vested enterest.? Hate to disapoint you but there is no vested enterest in any of this, it holds no personal rights, nor does it hold personal enforcable rights.
The correct statement was SELF Enterest.
I see neither of you chose to go back and read the other parties post, and its questons it raised. However you somehow felt compelled to intervene and proscribe youre own thoughts.
Just a few more questions.
What is an 'enterest'?
And you're now saying that no one has a vested interest in this - yet earlier, you said that we both did have a vested interest. Why did you lie?
And why do you think that either Jade or I has a 'self interest' in this, anyway?
And why would it matter who I am? Does it make you any less wrong if I'm Asian or elderly or poor or something? Why should my personal characteristics make up for the fact that everything you've written is wrong?
And why do you think I'm claiming to be anyone?
And why would we condemn our own thoughts? (look up 'proscribe').
And how is anyone intervening? No one's stopping you from posting your drivel.
And who claimed that any of us had any personal enforceable rights?
And how many years have you had to practice to learn to make yourself look so foolish in your posts here?
>being that you are without 1st hand knowledge to my case you
>are without merit or fact to speak of it.
> I dont think I have ever seen anywhere but here, 2 people,
>"jade""Misty" so bent on disinforming the public,
>circumnavigating the facts, and outright distrorting the
>facts,as you TWO.
>
>I have to prove nothing, especialy to TWO entities that have a
>self proscribed enterest in the outcome of other peoples
>affairs.
>
>The people, "public" have there own right to read what is
>presented, and then to draw there own conclusion upon the
>facts, and choose how to proceed there from.
>
>You speak of case's and alleged law, but yet forget to mention
>every time the states and the agencies get caught with there
>hands outside there statutorial authoritzed authority, the 1st
>thing they do is claim 11th immunity, to save themselves from
>prosecution.
>
>Hmmm..golly geezzzzz
I do know that you didn't win the first time. And that you keep losing.
It seems that the one without merit or fact is you. Your self interest is interfering in your judgement.
The only misinformation and distortion of facts are coming from you.
>The more correct question would be, who are you, or who do
>you claim to be.
>
>Vested enterest.? Hate to disapoint you but there is no vested
>enterest in any of this, it holds no personal rights, nor does
>it hold personal enforcable rights.
>The correct statement was SELF Enterest.
>
>I see neither of you chose to go back and read the other
>parties post, and its questons it raised. However you somehow
>felt compelled to intervene and proscribe youre own thoughts.
In other words, you either don't want to answer the question or don't know the answer.
All you had to do was say so.