A must read for the ignorant

[mplsfitter539]

"Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville
Why the "deadbeat dad" is not only a myth but a hoax - the creation of government officials who plunder parents whose children the government itself has taken away. A parent whose children are taken away by a family court is only at the beginning of his troubles. The next step he is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds or even more of his income as "child support" to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name entered on a federal register of "delinquents." This is even before he has had a chance to become one, though it is also likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough and the backdating far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest.
It is difficult to believe such a thing can happen in a country with the Bill of Rights...."
This book really exposes the truth a must read for those who refuse to believe what is happening in this country right now
The government and the feminists only want you to see men as paychecks and felons!!!

[mistoffolees]

>"Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville
>Why the "deadbeat dad" is not only a myth but a hoax - the
>creation of government officials who plunder parents whose
>children the government itself has taken away.

IMHO, this extreme is just as bad as the extreme he's fighting against. Calling people who don't support your position ignorant makes it even worse.

There ARE deadbeat dads. No amount of denial will make that fact go away. There are also deadbeat moms. There are parents who want to support their kids and can't. There are parents who DO support their kids and don't get credit for it.

There are all sorts of problems with the system, but it DOES work much of the time. Seems to me that it would be more productive to acknowledge that fact and focus on trying to make it work better than taking an extreme position arguing for the entire system to be abolished.

Oh, and the CSE system as absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

[Giggles]

I am one CP with a "deadbeat"...actually I can't say that anymore...I have a "reformed" deadbeat because for the past 4 months he has been paying....BUT that is only becuase CSE suspended his drivers license and he was caught driving with a suspended license.  He finally woke up to the fact that to keep his license and hold a job, he has to pay what he is ordered to pay!  In my daughter's 8 years, he's racked up over $17K in arrearages!!  So yes...CSE worked in my case!!

[mplsfitter539]

 DON'T UNDERESTIMATE HOW BAD THE SYSTEM CAN BE.


Don't make the mistake of thinking the "justice system" is about "justice."

Don't make the mistake of thinking that if the truth is on your side, you'll be OK. The truth may be out there, but it rarely matters in family court.

 

[mistoffolees]

> DON'T UNDERESTIMATE HOW BAD THE SYSTEM CAN BE.
>
>
>Don't make the mistake of thinking the "justice system" is
>about "justice."
>
>Don't make the mistake of thinking that if the truth is on
>your side, you'll be OK. The truth may be out there, but it
>rarely matters in family court.
>


Don't make the mistake of thinking that your unsubstantiated accusations have any bearing on reality.

[Ref]

If you make people think they have no shot at fighting, many will not fight.

DH put it off until he just couldn't stand it anymore. SD suffered for his misconception that he couldn't change things. He went to court twice and won hands down and had all of BM's bullsh** contempt changes against DH completely dropped.

BTW the term ignorant isn't bad. It just means uneducated about a certain topic. I don't think the orginal poster wrote it in the commonly misused context of "stupid".

Best wishes,
Ref

[mistoffolees]

>If you make people think they have no shot at fighting, many
>will not fight.
>
>DH put it off until he just couldn't stand it anymore. SD
>suffered for his misconception that he couldn't change things.
>He went to court twice and won hands down and had all of BM's
>bullsh** contempt changes against DH completely dropped.
>


Exactly. That's why it's counter-productive to take the position that the entire system is out to 'get' the fathers and needs to be thrown out.

The system isn't perfect, but these 'the entire system is stacked against the father' arguments don't do any good. Better to work within the system to change it.

[mplsfitter539]

Ref exactly!!!!

You said "BTW the term ignorant isn't bad. It just means uneducated about a certain topic. I don't think the orginal poster wrote it in the commonly misused context of "stupid".

You are correct the word ignorant is not a negative term it simply means lack of knowledge on a given subject.

[Ref]

:7

[leon clugston]

>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Exactly. That's why it's counter-productive to take the
>position that the entire system is out to 'get' the fathers
>and needs to be thrown out.
>
>The system isn't perfect, but these 'the entire system is
>stacked against the father' arguments don't do any good.
>Better to work within the system to change it.


you realy should read title 42 U.S.C  654-669, with the damming part being in section "666" and the supporting regs in title 45 CFR's
Then  when you realy want to see what is realy happening, I will be more than gladly to email you the Great Private law "Cooperative Agreements" that every state is bound by, and every court, every judge including Texas most prized special associate judges.

[mistoffolees]

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Exactly. That's why it's counter-productive to take the
>>position that the entire system is out to 'get' the fathers
>>and needs to be thrown out.
>>
>>The system isn't perfect, but these 'the entire system is
>>stacked against the father' arguments don't do any good.
>>Better to work within the system to change it.
>
>
>you realy should read title 42 U.S.C  654-669, with the
>damming part being in section "666" and the supporting regs in
>title 45 CFR's
>Then  when you realy want to see what is realy happening, I
>will be more than gladly to email you the Great Private law
>"Cooperative Agreements" that every state is bound by, and
>every court, every judge including Texas most prized special
>associate judges.


Unfortunately, there's not a single court system in teh country that agrees with your interpretation.

[leon clugston]

you wouldnt know that would you.

They dont have to agree with fact, not interpretation, they already agreed on it in other cases, so ime sorry my dear.
The only person interpreting anything is you in this forum and what serves in youre favor in youre administrative world.

[mistoffolees]

And, yet, courts across the country continue to order child support - and the principle of child support has not been overturned either by appeals courts or the Supreme Court.

Whether you like it or not, child support paid by the NCP is the practice throughout the US.

[leon clugston]

>And, yet, courts across the country continue to order child
>support - and the principle of child support has not been
>overturned either by appeals courts or the Supreme Court.
>
>Whether you like it or not, child support paid by the NCP is
>the practice throughout the US.


That wasn't the discussion here now was it!!
The issue was the prime directive behind it, and rather or not the ruleings were convoluted with disrimination torwards men.
Now you want to deny or try to decry the Cooperqative agreements, and yet you dont deny the fact they exist, so the only proper conclusion drawn is you dont want to know about them, or you another individual determined to keep them covered up, even though they exist in the real world and exist in case law.
And once again you go off into a tangent to avoid the facts.

[mistoffolees]

\
>That wasn't the discussion here now was it!!
>The issue was the prime directive behind it, and rather or not
>the ruleings were convoluted with disrimination torwards men.
>
>Now you want to deny or try to decry the Cooperqative
>agreements, and yet you dont deny the fact they exist, so the
>only proper conclusion drawn is you dont want to know about
>them, or you another individual determined to keep them
>covered up, even though they exist in the real world and exist
>in case law.
>And once again you go off into a tangent to avoid the facts.

No, the only conclusion is that you're pretending that your interpretation of the laws is more valid than the interpretation regularly used by many thousands of judges throughout the US.

THAT is the real world.

[leon clugston]

funny since mine are backed by the U.S Supreme Court.

[mistoffolees]

Really? The US Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to force NCPs to pay support?

When did that happen?

[leon clugston]

>Really? The US Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional
>to force NCPs to pay support?
>
>When did that happen?


That wasn't the discussion here, boy you are a sick twisted individual bent on discrediting anything that might interfere with you personal enterest, you truely are a piece of work.

[mistoffolees]

Nice try.

I'll ask one more time. In simple English, what is your point? You keep arguing that the state courts have no jurisdiction, then you switch to other bogus arguments.

Please spell out your exact argument without any mumbo-jumbol

Not that it matters - the courts consistently uphold the right of state courts to require a man to pay child support - even if he leaves the state. None of your hand-waving changes that.

[leon clugston]

What the heck are you babbling about, that was not the discussion here.
At least though you finainly admit "MAN" is the one paying, so discrimitory actions torwards a the opposit gender , ie. man is youre preference.

[mistoffolees]

>What the heck are you babbling about, that was not the
>discussion here.

That's why I've asked you repeatedly to state your argument in plain English. So far, you've done nothing but blind attacks on the current system with bogus arguments about how the Supreme Court has ruled that the current system is wrong, but you've never stated exactly what you're saying. Neither have you stated what you propose to fix the 'problem', but that's too much to ask.

>At least though you finainly admit "MAN" is the one paying, so
>discrimitory actions torwards a the opposit gender , ie. man
>is youre preference.


Care to try that in English?

If it says what I THINK it says, you couldn't be more wrong. Generally, the person with higher income pays support - regardless of gender. I think you'll find pleny of women paying support if you bother to open your eyes.

[Ref]

why don't you end the discussion? It is really silly to keep on going like this.

Sometimes I read posts that go on and on like this and I can see how difficult the communication must be between the posters and their ex's.

Just walk away. It really isn't a discussion that is helpful.

Just my opinion.
Ref

[leon clugston]

and so I have listed repeatedly the intent of the discussion, and was in referencing to the original poster of the discussion.

You might want to go back and read youre other statements."ie" in reference to discrimitory

And yes I am well aware of other women that pay support, and in all cases they"the ones I know" have there children more than 50% of the time, are the "Legal" custodial parent, and still pay support, which proves the fact its about money for the system, not the children, or the enterest of the children. Which is clearly distinguished in the Cooperative Agreements, that you are so bent on denouncing existence, even though they exist in fact, in paper, in law and case law.

Considering the fact, in all past discussions I have backed my facts with law and case law, for which you go into a tanget in the opposit direction to discredit with nothing but alleged theorys of self supported conspiracys, I find that either you cannot and will not except what you cannot understand, or wish to keep things hidden from other posters that might direct there attention to what there is besides this propagated information provided by certain entities to misdirect the truths about the system.

[leon clugston]

>why don't you end the discussion? It is really silly to keep
>on going like this.
>
>Sometimes I read posts that go on and on like this and I can
>see how difficult the communication must be between the
>posters and their ex's.
>
>Just walk away. It really isn't a discussion that is helpful.
>
>Just my opinion.
>Ref

I couldn't agree more REF, "point noted" I dont set out to discredit everyone that might contradict what i wish to recieve.

[mistoffolees]

>why don't you end the discussion? It is really silly to keep
>on going like this.
>
>Sometimes I read posts that go on and on like this and I can
>see how difficult the communication must be between the
>posters and their ex's.
>
>Just walk away. It really isn't a discussion that is helpful.
>
>Just my opinion.
>Ref


It would be helpful if Leon would state specifically what his position is so that it can be discussed.

Instead, he makes wild statements about how the system is entirely unconstitutional and unfair to men.

I generally speak up when he starts making statements which could lead someone into making a major mistake - such as questioning the authority of local courts to set alimony or similar statements. I would speak up just as quickly on another board if someone were making the discredited statement that income tax is illegal and you don't have to pay the IRS.

There is a real danger here that people will take bad advice and get themselves into serious trouble. His posts lead in that direction, so I challenge them.

[mistoffolees]

And, yet, you are incapable of stating your position in clear English. All you've done so far is try to discredit the system and claim that it's inherently unfair and that the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Why is it that it's so hard for you to state your position in clear English?

Anyone talking your advice and trying to work outside the system (or tell a judge that he/she doesn't have the right to set child support, for example) is going to get burned. Big time.

[KAT]

Child support is simply another form of slavery:  involuntary servitude. Which goes against the 13th Amendment to US Constitution.

KAT

[mistoffolees]

>Child support is simply another form of slavery:  involuntary
>servitude. Which goes against the 13th Amendment to US
>Constitution.
>
>KAT


Wrong. Thanks for playing.

[lucky]

Do you pay or are you paid?

If all CS was guaranteed to go directly to the child's needs, I'd agree with you.  But, since there is no requirement for the recipient to account for how they spend it, well....

It's hard to say it's okay when the kids DON'T benefit from CS paid by their NCP, isn't it?

[em]Lucky

Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]

[mistoffolees]

>Do you pay or are you paid?

I pay - a great deal - even though I have 50% physical custody.

>
>If all CS was guaranteed to go directly to the child's needs,
>I'd agree with you.  But, since there is no requirement for
>the recipient to account for how they spend it, well....

There's no legal requirement for a married person to account for how they spend money, either. Or for an unmarried parent. Expecting someone to mandate how money is spent is silly.

If it comes down to quibbling over how a particular dollar is spent, you're missing the point. The CP provides a home - how much does that cost? He/She provides transportation. Cooking. Cleaning. And much more. Many of the people who complain about how the money is spent are looking at only the most trivial surface items ("I spend $500 per month on child support and she only buys $100 worth of clothes at the most"). When you look at the cost of raising a child, the child support in most cases is used on raising the child.

>
>It's hard to say it's okay when the kids DON'T benefit from CS
>paid by their NCP, isn't it?

If you have evidence that this is a common problem, feel free to present it. And please provide REAL evidence, not just anecdotal whining. And then feel free to propose a solution which eliminates the problem.

Bottom line is that the couple got divorced. They're not going to agree on how every penny is spent. The normal solution is for the custodial parent to have primary responsiblity for determining how the money is spent.

If you object to that, you can stay married, or you can demand wording in your court order that specifies how the money is spent (this can be done) or you can demand wording in the court order that the NCP pays certain expenses directly (this can also be done).

Complaining that the system is flawed because some people are bad parents just doesn't make sense. There is no perfect solution, but the system works pretty well on the whole.

[olanna]

I've been on both sides of this coin, in two separate states. I can say and offer my experience, that the courts have much more understanding to those receiving child support than to those that are paying it.

Of course, every dime they collect goes towards the states "at a boy" award, (and many are matched with a percentage to aid in collecting, which directly reflects in higher salaries for those handling the money, etc...true story).

So why not have those really high awards?  IF they collect on them, it looks great.  And if they don't??? They can raise the flag and say.."oh we have to get this taken care of for the children.  We have to collect the monies owed from these dead beats...the children are suffering!!!!"

It's a double edged sword.  And every person that goes through a divorce where children are involved, and they make the most money is GOING to fall on it in our current system.

The change has to come by getting the courts out of our families and by education.

Does that mean that there aren't people out there supporting their children? Absolutely not.  I know people that are TOGETHER in an in tact marriage that aren't supporting their kids, but see, the courts aren't involved, so who gives a shit about those kids? Oh yea, CPS.  LOL...good try but that entity is pretty much in place to cover the government's ass.

I agree that something has got to give.  If the average SSI payments to support a child run on average $624 a month, why are child support orders so much higher?  (For those of you that don't know, this is a payment made by the government for a child that had a parent die before the age of 18).

I have raised four kids. I also took in foster kids (at my own expense) and I can tell you, it simply DOES NOT take more than $500 a month to raise a child.  (And I am talking a child that is NOT in day care without special needs).  We all have to live somewhere and we all have to pay for the power we use, the water we use and the food we eat. I live in CA, and I have a 12 year son that is still at home. I can tell you, he lives well.  And it does not cost thousands of dollars a month to raise him.

I don't need the courts to tell me when my son can see his Dad. He can see his Dad whenever his Dad wants to see him. I also don't need the court to tell me when to contact Dad.  I got educated a very long time ago, on what is best for my children.  And having two parents that can get along, remove the money issues, *is* the way to do it.  Does that mean that everyone has to be in a big group hug? Absolutely not. But what that does mean is that each parent has to LOVE the child more than they hate each other.  And that only comes with maturity, education and thoughtfulness.  Courts do not promote that..if anything they strip families of that.

But there is no money coming in if everyone learns how to do that, so why would they?

[mistoffolees]

>I've been on both sides of this coin, in two separate states.
>I can say and offer my experience, that the courts have much
>more understanding to those receiving child support than to
>those that are paying it.
>
>Of course, every dime they collect goes towards the states "at
>a boy" award, (and many are matched with a percentage to aid
>in collecting, which directly reflects in higher salaries for
>those handling the money, etc...true story).
>
>So why not have those really high awards?  IF they collect on
>them, it looks great.  And if they don't??? They can raise the
>flag and say.."oh we have to get this taken care of for the
>children.  We have to collect the monies owed from these dead
>beats...the children are suffering!!!!"

Any evidence that this really happens?

The awards are set by statute in most state. Can you point to awards in excess of the statutory amounts? If not (other than obvious procedural errors), then your argument fails. After all, if your argument were correct, then CSE would ALWAYS try to collect more than the required amount.

>
>It's a double edged sword.  And every person that goes through
>a divorce where children are involved, and they make the most
>money is GOING to fall on it in our current system.

Hardly. I didn't fall on any sword. You're seeing all the negatives without realizing that the system works in the vast majority of cases.

>
>The change has to come by getting the courts out of our
>families and by education.

How do you do that? If a parent won't pay, how do you make them pay without courts?

>
>Does that mean that there aren't people out there supporting
>their children? Absolutely not.  I know people that are
>TOGETHER in an in tact marriage that aren't supporting their
>kids, but see, the courts aren't involved, so who gives a shit
>about those kids? Oh yea, CPS.  LOL...good try but that entity
>is pretty much in place to cover the government's ass.

What does that have to do with anything? CPS is there to deal with harm to the children. The courts are there to define appropriate child support. The two are not related.

>
>I agree that something has got to give.  If the average SSI
>payments to support a child run on average $624 a month, why
>are child support orders so much higher?  (For those of you
>that don't know, this is a payment made by the government for
>a child that had a parent die before the age of 18).

Perhaps because SSI is meant to provide the minimum amount of support required to keep the kid from starving.

Court ordered child support is intended to allow the child to maintain his/her standard of living. If a parent is making $200 K, why should the child only get the minimum sustenance required to sustain life?

>
>I have raised four kids. I also took in foster kids (at my own
>expense) and I can tell you, it simply DOES NOT take more than
>$500 a month to raise a child.  (And I am talking a child that
>is NOT in day care without special needs).  We all have to

Not at minimum sustenance levels.

For an upper middle class child, the cost is several times that amount. Heck, my daughter's activities and education alone are 3-4 times that amount. Since she went to a private school when we were married and was active in activities, why should that suddenly end?

>live somewhere and we all have to pay for the power we use,
>the water we use and the food we eat. I live in CA, and I have
>a 12 year son that is still at home. I can tell you, he lives
>well.  And it does not cost thousands of dollars a month to
>raise him.

Sorry, but $500 per month gets the bare necessities and not much more. Heck, I budget $500 per month just for our vacations.

>
>I don't need the courts to tell me when my son can see his
>Dad. He can see his Dad whenever his Dad wants to see him. I
>also don't need the court to tell me when to contact Dad.  I
>got educated a very long time ago, on what is best for my
>children.  And having two parents that can get along, remove
>the money issues, *is* the way to do it.  Does that mean that
>everyone has to be in a big group hug? Absolutely not. But
>what that does mean is that each parent has to LOVE the child
>more than they hate each other.  And that only comes with
>maturity, education and thoughtfulness.  Courts do not promote
>that..if anything they strip families of that.

Unfortunately, most of us live in the real world. If the court did not order visitation, a lot of parents would NEVER see their kids.

>
>But there is no money coming in if everyone learns how to do
>that, so why would they?

Why don't you suggest how you're going to make that happen without courts? How are you going to get parents to agree on custody and visitation - and then live up to their agreement - 100% of the time?

In the real world, parents don't agree - and the courts apply standards set forth by the legislature. Advocating the elmination of court involvement in divorce and custody is a pipe dream.

[olanna]

Are you really a man? Your profile says you are but you could be my wife in law speaking!