S.P.A.R.C.

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

Author Topic: child support - back owed  (Read 36891 times)

The OutLaw

  • Guest
RE: Ok, looked over this stupid case...
« Reply #90 on: Jan 20, 2004, 12:24:22 PM »
Wow you are unreal. I was just tring to point out some things and help YOU understand. NOT start a war with somebody I dont even know about something that has nothing to do with me. But I guess you have nothing better to do then rip apart someone looking for help and get rude to people tring to help YOU understand. This thread is unreal out of almost 100 posts only 4 of them are tring to help this women.

Strbery I am sorry this thread has gottn out of control I would suggest contacting MO CSE they are probably going to be more help then anybody in this thread. Odviously these people like the drama of negativity and thrive on it.



Indigo Mom

  • Guest
RE: Excuse me???????
« Reply #91 on: Jan 20, 2004, 12:46:22 PM »
I pointed out everything which I thought "could" be considered a flaw!  (by mustang) You explained every "flaw" away with a legit "reason".  What is left but the truth??????  When the truth is the ONLY thing left, then the truth is the ONLY thing to a case...am I right??????  


stwbshort

  • Guest
RE: Ok, looked over this stupid case...
« Reply #92 on: Jan 20, 2004, 01:02:43 PM »
ok, '98 is my kids birthday.  they probably use it as reference to the victim(since they can't actuall disclose that).

they didn't arrest him twice.  they arrested him and got a warrant to go before the grand jury (they had to serve him so he could show up in court)
A Grand Jury has two responsiblities, (1) of which is: to hear evidence of criminal accusations in possible felonies  presented by the District Attorney and decide whether the accused should be indicted and tried for a crime.  Since many felony charges are filed by the DA in a municipal or other lower court which holds a reliminary hearing to determine if there is just cause for trial instead of have the grand jury hear the matter,"  they usually don't use go to the GJ.  But the DA thought it to be necessary to go infront of the GJ so he can be charged with federal charges instead of state  so they can get the maximum sentence.

I didn't come on here with a bunch of lies so that I wouldn't  get the  true help I am looking for.  I came here with the truth!

I don't care who responds, I just think that mustang was seriously out of line and not on the same page.   All he had to do was tell us his "flaw" and I would have been able to correct him.

Thank you all for the help & support, it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Indigo Mom

  • Guest
RE: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!
« Reply #93 on: Jan 20, 2004, 02:18:07 PM »
Actually, the first thing I thought when I saw "1998" was that he was accused by another person (because your child would have been a newborn then)...but then those charges were dropped.  Then, I thought maybe it took the investigators THAT long to find enough evidence on him (which, BTW...if that was the case, the head investigator should be shot).  Then, I saw the newspaper article and scratched my head a bunch of times.  Then I got all twisted up in the WTF's...and thought screw it...I'm posting them.  Oh, and yes, there was a short time this morning when I thought something just wasn't "right"....

noooooooooooooow i see what the whole mess means!  I didn't know about the charges turning federal. I want to say, i NEVER accused you of lying, I didn't think you were.  After all, who the heck is going to post the case number if they're lying.  However, I've been stuck on this "flaw" since mustang brought it up.  (not to prove you wrong, mind you, to see if I could fricken find the thing) I've made a few posts about a sort of/possible/maybe/maybe not "flaw" and I've stated what I "thought" mustang may have meant...and then ended each post saying I believed the guy was guilty.

There's only one person in this thread who is questioning you...and it's not me.  Each and every poster who's read your story, seen the article, and went to the court website has stated that you sound like nothing more than a sincere, loving mother.  I never said those "exact" words, but never said you were lying.  You can read each post of mine and you won't once see me calling you on any "lie".  I haven't attacked you in any way, shape, or form, that I know of.

I still hold by what I said...I HAVE to have found the "flaw" mustang is talking about...so when he brings it up, it can be explained, rather than being thrown around that you're a liar making ME go bonkers trying to find it!!!

BTW...did you call social services?







Peanutsdad

  • Guest
RE: Ok, looked over this stupid case...
« Reply #94 on: Jan 20, 2004, 02:48:02 PM »
strawberry,

One of the great things about the help folks can get here,, is if they ARE full of sh*t,, typically, the help wont help em.

The only person whos taken that stance in your thread is mustang,, and I think its become apparent he's not wrapped too tightly.

Once you wade thru all the bs that has become embroiled in this thread, you do find a few things that should help you.


stwbshort

  • Guest
RE: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!
« Reply #95 on: Jan 20, 2004, 03:04:59 PM »
k, i never said you called me a lier or tried to bash me in anyway. mustang is off.  way off his rocker.
i don't think he called me a lier out right (i would have to read through all of his irrational, insane responses again and i don't really want to take a nap right now), he said he was making allegations that my story wasn't right, but got all offended when peanutsdad made allegations on him.  i don 't see how that's not a double standard.   he has his right to have his own oppinion and i'm not at all trying to take that away from him,... but so am i.  i personally still believe the man needs some serious counseling and maybe a physc exam.  again, my own feelings.  

yes, i keep trying to call ss.  i keep getting put on hold and transfered because no one seems to want to answer my question.  but, i will keep trying until i get an answer.  i am a persistant little woman.  if that doesn't work, i think i will try to look it up on the net, not that i've gotten too far with the net in other searches, but its worth a try.  

thanks again for the help and understanding.

stwbshort

  • Guest
RE: Ok, looked over this stupid case...
« Reply #96 on: Jan 20, 2004, 03:08:32 PM »
oh, i totally agree.  that's why i've proven my point to him and let it go because he's wacko.(in my opinion)
yes, i have seen the advice and help and am very greatfull for it.  i am looking into it and hope its what i need.  

thanks

Peanutsdad

  • Guest
RE: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!
« Reply #97 on: Jan 20, 2004, 03:09:19 PM »
Send a request for administrative hearing to cse.

stwbshort

  • Guest
RE: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!
« Reply #98 on: Jan 20, 2004, 03:12:14 PM »
just to clerify, that's where i can get the bigwigs to sit down with me and give me all the evidence?  when i would go, what would i need to bring?

Indigo Mom

  • Guest
RE: UGH!!!!!!!
« Reply #99 on: Jan 20, 2004, 03:43:56 PM »
http://www.dss.mo.gov/cse/geninfo.htm


-----DCSE collects child support on behalf of households receiving public assistance not only to eliminate their dependence on assistance programs, but also to reimburse the state for the benefits provided to these families.-----

Methinks you're SOL on this one.  

I don't get it.  Does the NCP have a say as to whether the CP goes ON welfare to begin with?  NO....!!!!!  So why the hell are NCP's responsible for the CP's debt???????????????  I had to report monster because while my son was "unofficially" living with me, monster used the court order to get all the welfare benefits...and claimed my child! I wasn't ABOUT to end up paying back the state for that squids deception.  I proved my case, my sons "portion" of the bennies was removed LUCKILY!!!  But then they told me they don't go after NCP's for a debt like that!!!

And another thing that pisses me off?  When you do end up having to pay back the 3333...is it going back into the tax payers pockets?  After all, it's the taxpayers who fed your ex and child...

Do whatever PeanutsDad said...I can't remember what he said, but I think it's some form of review.  







 

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.