Non-Custodial Parent means?

[mistoffolees]

Once again, you've demonstrated that you're so blinded by your delusions that you won't even consider the facts.

Agency administrators do this routinely and the courts support it. It happens all the time - which is exactly what you're complaining about. If it doesn't happen, then your silly crusade is meaningless.

It happens and the courts allow it to happen. That makes it the current law - until you can prove otherwise. Since it's so widely prevalent in every court in the country and every state in the nation, it would take a strongly worded Supreme Court ruling to stop it. So far, that hasn't happened.

Your delusions notwithstanding, of course.

[leon clugston]

Well ime glad we settled that you have nothing to support youre claims, nor do you deny youre self enterst in everyones elses affiars.

[mistoffolees]

1. Learn to read and write the English language if you want to be taken seriously.
2. I don't have any self-interest in anyone else's affairs. Since you're the one claiming I do, you need to prove it. I don't have any obligation to disprove all the blowhard claims from delusional fanatics.
3. I've already supported my claims. The fact that every single court in every single state does what you're complaining about is pretty strong evidence that you're wrong.
4. You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that supports your claim that state agencies don't have any right to settle custody or support matters. All you've provided is a number of completely unrelated cases that have never been applied to this situation by the courts.

You lose. Again.

[Jade]

>Well ime glad we settled that you have nothing to support
>youre claims, nor do you deny youre self enterst in everyones
>elses affiars.

The only thing that is settled is that you haven't proven your case.

And that you are letting your own self interest guide your intepretation of laws that you THINK pertain to your situation.

[leon clugston]

being that you are without 1st hand knowledge to my case you are without merit or fact to speak of it.
 I dont think I have ever seen anywhere but here, 2 people, "jade""Misty" so bent on disinforming the public, circumnavigating the facts, and outright distrorting the facts,as you TWO.

I have to prove nothing, especialy to TWO entities that have a self proscribed enterest in the outcome of other peoples affairs.

The people, "public" have there own right to read what is presented, and then to draw there own conclusion upon the facts, and choose how to proceed there from.

You speak of case's and alleged law, but yet forget to mention every time the states and the agencies get caught with there hands outside there statutorial authoritzed authority, the 1st thing they do is claim 11th immunity, to save themselves from prosecution.

Hmmm..golly geezzzzz

[mistoffolees]

I'm just curious what vested interest you think that Jade and I have in your case or anyone else's case about here.

None of your inane ramblings, just stick to the question. What is this vested interest?

Equally important, what is a 'self-proscribed' vested interest? That would mean that we don't allow ourselves to have a vested interested - which is completely opposite of what you seem to be claiming. Just one more example of where your grammar and spelling are so bad that any message you might have gets lost.

Now, answer the question. What vested interest do you think Jade and I have in these cases?

[leon clugston]

The more correct question would be, who are you, or who do you claim to be.

Vested enterest.? Hate to disapoint you but there is no vested enterest in any of this, it holds no personal rights, nor does it hold personal enforcable rights.
The correct statement was SELF Enterest.

I see neither of you chose to go back and read the other parties post, and its questons it raised. However you somehow felt compelled to intervene and proscribe youre own thoughts.

[mistoffolees]

Just a few more questions.

What is an 'enterest'?

And you're now saying that no one has a vested interest in this - yet earlier, you said that we both did have a vested interest. Why did you lie?

And why do you think that either Jade or I has a 'self interest' in this, anyway?

And why would it matter who I am? Does it make you any less wrong if I'm Asian or elderly or poor or something? Why should my personal characteristics make up for the fact that everything you've written is wrong?

And why do you think I'm claiming to be anyone?

And why would we condemn our own thoughts? (look up 'proscribe').

And how is anyone intervening? No one's stopping you from posting your drivel.

And who claimed that any of us had any personal enforceable rights?

And how many years have you had to practice to learn to make yourself look so foolish in your posts here?

[Jade]

>being that you are without 1st hand knowledge to my case you
>are without merit or fact to speak of it.
> I dont think I have ever seen anywhere but here, 2 people,
>"jade""Misty" so bent on disinforming the public,
>circumnavigating the facts, and outright distrorting the
>facts,as you TWO.
>
>I have to prove nothing, especialy to TWO entities that have a
>self proscribed enterest in the outcome of other peoples
>affairs.
>
>The people, "public" have there own right to read what is
>presented, and then to draw there own conclusion upon the
>facts, and choose how to proceed there from.
>
>You speak of case's and alleged law, but yet forget to mention
>every time the states and the agencies get caught with there
>hands outside there statutorial authoritzed authority, the 1st
>thing they do is claim 11th immunity, to save themselves from
>prosecution.
>
>Hmmm..golly geezzzzz

I do know that you didn't win the first time.  And that you keep losing.  

It seems that the one without merit or fact is you.   Your self interest is interfering in your judgement.  

The only misinformation and distortion of facts are coming from you.  

[Jade]

>The more correct question would be, who are you, or who do
>you claim to be.
>
>Vested enterest.? Hate to disapoint you but there is no vested
>enterest in any of this, it holds no personal rights, nor does
>it hold personal enforcable rights.
>The correct statement was SELF Enterest.
>
>I see neither of you chose to go back and read the other
>parties post, and its questons it raised. However you somehow
>felt compelled to intervene and proscribe youre own thoughts.


In other words, you either don't want to answer the question or don't know the answer.  

All you had to do was say so.