Messages

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.

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.

every other week, and sometimes even more he's here, its good like it 's should and supposed to be.

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 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 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?

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.

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?

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.