Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - leon

Pages: 1 2 34 5 ... 7
who is listed as the Custodial parent, thats all the IRS cares about, anything else is up to the courts.

Child Support Issues / RE: A note about a prosecutor being invovled
« on: Feb 26, 2007, 04:02:21 PM »
you were paying more than what they thought you should be, through there review.
Bad news,, to many times, and more often than not, they claim that since you were able to do such, that it should be of no consequence for you ti continue, and of course there other claim of fortune is, it would destitut the child, if such was to receive a lessor amount.
Personaly I hope it works for you, just depends how this special Prosecutor and the Associate Judge want to be.

Child Support Issues / RE: please HELP... question about
« on: Feb 22, 2007, 11:11:53 AM »
and once again like every other entity with a enterest in the outcome of other peoples cases you avoided the facts,
You avoided 42- 1301"d"
the Cooperative agreements, however I wasn't here to argue with entities, I was here to simpily advise this person there is always different alternatives when presented with the ultimate facts, they cannot be denied,
But then again I dont have an Pecuinary enterest in this case, or any other, nor do i profit or gain in any manner from the advice I give, nor is the advice restricted to one gendor.

Child Support Issues / RE: please HELP... question about
« on: Feb 21, 2007, 09:26:17 PM »
They have where the state has shown an enterest, "a valid enterest," however 42 usc. & 1301 "D" kinda ends that now doesn't it.
More importantly a legislative action has to show a valid govermment enterest, and that has not yet been established.

Child Support Issues / RE: please HELP... question about
« on: Feb 21, 2007, 03:47:34 PM »
The Ag office is supporting the Agency, however, what you are not being told is what is happening in the background, ude to what is called Cooperative Federalism, "Cooperative Agreements" which is where the AG, the state Agency and the courts have all contracted  together to derive the highest amount possible from a person. The standard of living is technicaly interpretive, so be carefull how much you try to rely on what it says, it could backfire upon you.
But better yet, being that the AG has trespassed in this case now would be the time to encite Title 42 U.S.C & 1301"d"
42 U.S.C. 1301 (d): “Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing any federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.”


The United States Constitution also clarifies my right to this federal provision, stating:


14th Amendment, Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

its kinda funny in a sadistical way, that the time with youre children doesn't count unless there there over night, which is when a child sleeps, doesn't usualy eat, doesn't use the bathroom, doesn't use the lights, doesn't usualy need to be ran to games or prctices.
Now dureing the day time all they above apply, for which you get no credit for,Hmmm, enteresting figures they have.

 its youre world not mine, Ime not loseing anything, nor is it costing me, nor do I gain or charge anything contrary or not, Peace.


As much as I appreciate youre candidness in the matter, the problem with me is that I dont need to research anymore, I already have to much info. Libraried, I am well aware of what CSED says, i am also very well aware they dont want to talk about the cooperative agreements or " Cooperative Federalism" either, and yes I have no doubt that they garnish his wages at whatever amount they please, for that is what they do untill someone catches them, and imputs the correct law, in this case federal law, U.S.C, and the Corresponding CFR's, as mandated under the Federal Administartive Procedures Act, and mandates, which are all fall under  the Compact clause, hence forth youre federal law.

Go Ask CSED, or the Judge"assuming this isn;t an Administartive order" to disclose the Cooperative Agreements, they WONT, but I have them, for Two States and soon I will have more.

federal law under title 42 U.S.C is 50%, this is compiled with the Cooperative agreements under title IV-d of the Social Security Act, sub sec 651-669, and title 45 CFR's 301-, and under the Federal Administrative Procedures ACt, for which all agencies must comply, and finialy and further bonded under the Compact Caluse"Cooperative Federalism"
And I dont beleive I was talking about what was or was not owed.
And the issue still stands, was it an Admin hearing or a judicial Hearing they were trying to get, even though under the Cooperative Agreements the outcome would by contract still be the same

and its right they cannot take more than 50% of his pay, in cases  like that where his newer income does not match his old, and they can only take x amount, the rest just accumalates in back support, There alleged phyloshofy is that it needs to be more than a tempory reduction, hence the 6+month drag out, of course the NCP"Obligor" is getting behind dureing that time, "which the states absilutely love" Now is this an Administrative hearing youre trying to get, or are you /he trying to get a court hearing.?

Pages: 1 2 34 5 ... 7
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.