Messages

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.

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 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.?

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

I will try to per youre respectfull post to clean up things.
And I duefully respect youre opinion.

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

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.

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?

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.