Messages

>I'm still waiting for:
>
>1. Your explanation in simple language what your position is.
>
>2. Your recommendation of what you think the system SHOULD
>be.
>
>3. Your evidence that the system is all about money.
>
>4. Your evidence that the system fails to work more often than
>it works.
>
>Until you can provide those things, how do you expect anyone
>to take you seriously?


Misty you and I have went rounds, and all that has been resolved is unless you personaly can benefit from whatever anyone proves, you denounce it as being fact, that being said, I told you by the end of the week i will show this group excerpts from said law, Federal, that is mandated upon the states and the judges, that transforms it all to non disclosed public law, for which binds the judges to perform in favor of the state for money, which in turn obliques there indpendant decision, turning it into a  Administerial decision, not of law but of contract, for which you personly will denounce, but there it is, and yes its in public record, the codes, the CFR's, and under youre state child support plan.

as a EQUAL CP, 50% legal and Physical "YES Misty one week on, one week off,, I find the current sytem is bent over money period.
OOOPS, so much for equal protection of the alleged law, which the court even admitted didn't allow them to do it" ie...make a support amount"

Now as a former NCP, it was even better, we can take youre money, youre "Drivers" license, lein youre property, raid youre accounts, and change the amount of support at any time, and we can do it as employees of the state, for which you can only argue with us, and must exhaust all possible remedies before you can challenge us in a pretend court of law, "Which is made up of more employees who are bound by the Cooperative agreements, and must submit to the resolutions set forth in the cooperative agreements"Contracts"

its always those darn deadbeat dads isn't it.Yep, should hang all men who are not married in town square now shoudln't we. Those non compliant individuals would learn then to never question an employee of the state. Tell you what, I will spend the next week, putting together excerpts from the Texas and Alaska agreements, and put them on here, in fact I will even include transmittal numbers and the corresponding CFR's with them, then we can discuss what is realy what.

>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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

>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.

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.