Non-Custodial Parent means?

[Jade]

>based on what?
>
>U.S Suprem Court has constantly held that parents CP's/ and
>NCP's have 14th amendment rights, for which the states cannot
>abrogate upon.
>Joint Custody and Shared custody in most states have to
>different meanings, there alleged to be dependant upon time.
>
>And I understand the difference between legal and Physical
>obviously very well.
>for which you opted as usual to not debunk, except with youre
>personal non founded opinion.
>
>The alleged Authoprity you speak of comes from Written
>Publicly Known Law, so if it isn't written, or pubblicly known
>Law, then it dont exist
>Adjucation, determination, an order is base upon Written law,
>or its void.
>
>I find it enteresting you 2, spend more time trying to debunk
>fact, Written Law, upheld laws and cases, when all you speak
>of is youre personal exsperience.
>so is it personal, or is it based on a monetary plane, for
>which you exspect or do receive.
>
>I dont need to bark"as you put it" I back everything with
>Absolute facts and case law,
>Wheres youres? youre states- the ones that are bound by
>contract to perform in a nature that is repugnant to the
>constitution and there Oaths of Professional Code of conduct.
>
>

You haven't proven your case.  Or you wouldn't have had to appeal a second time.  

The facts don't back up your argument.  

[leon]

You re obviously not familiar with the states, and there only one guise they have to keeping the lid on things, ie..getting away with things they have no authority to
The Rooker Feildman Doctrine, a poorly conceived Opinion from a judge on a case of jurisdiction, from which the states have been useing to keep issues of law from reaching the federal court, fro which the U.S Supreme Court  finialy denounced
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Has no Application in Clugston's Case.
   The Rooker-Feldman was finally interred as stated in Lance v. Dennis, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 1204 (dissenting opinion 2006), to wit:
Last Term, in Justice GINSBURG's lucid opinion in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), the Court finally interred the so-called "Rooker-Feldman doctrine."   And today, the Court quite properly disapproves of the District Court's resuscitation of a doctrine that has *1204 produced nothing but mischief for 23 years.  [Emphasis added]

Hint/ Youre sure set on disproving me/  I surely question why?
unless of course this will have a negative impact upon youre benefits.
Either way, no one is above the WRITTEN LAW, and no one is ever above the Organic law of the United States and the Several States.

[Jade]

>You re obviously not familiar with the states, and there only
>one guise they have to keeping the lid on things, ie..getting
>away with things they have no authority to
>The Rooker Feildman Doctrine, a poorly conceived Opinion from
>a judge on a case of jurisdiction, from which the states have
>been useing to keep issues of law from reaching the federal
>court, fro which the U.S Supreme Court  finialy denounced
>Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Has no Application in Clugston's
>Case.
>   The Rooker-Feldman was finally interred as stated in Lance v.
>Dennis, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 1204 (dissenting opinion 2006), to
>wit:
>Last Term, in Justice GINSBURG's lucid opinion in Exxon Mobil
>Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct.
>1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), the Court finally interred the
>so-called "Rooker-Feldman doctrine."   And today, the Court
>quite properly disapproves of the District Court's
>resuscitation of a doctrine that has *1204 produced nothing
>but mischief for 23 years.  [Emphasis added]
>
>Hint/ Youre sure set on disproving me/  I surely question
>why?
>unless of course this will have a negative impact upon youre
>benefits.
>Either way, no one is above the WRITTEN LAW, and no one is
>ever above the Organic law of the United States and the
>Several States.
>

I am very familiar with my state's child support laws.  

I am not setting out to disprove anything as you haven't proven anything to disprove.  

The WRITTEN LAW states that the non-custodial parent (ncp being the parent with less overnights than the CP) is obligated to pay child support.  

Benefits?  Child support isn't a benefit to me.  It is a benefit to my CHILDREN.  Hence why it is called child support.  

[mistoffolees]

Looks to me like Leon isn't interested in supporting his kids so he's going to all sorts of bizarre extremes to try to get out of it.

I hope they've got a mother who takes care of them.

[Jade]

>Looks to me like Leon isn't interested in supporting his kids
>so he's going to all sorts of bizarre extremes to try to get
>out of it.
>
>I hope they've got a mother who takes care of them.

I hope so, as well.  The money he is spending fighting the law could be better spent on the children, saved for their college or something else.  

[leon]

typical response. hate to dissapoint you but I have my child, and like I said ime operating within the sytem useing there laws, there regs and there codes.
Ime supporting my child while he's at both houses, Uh wait thats how its supposed to be isn't it?
youre cinicalness shows youre true disregaurd for other people except for youreselves.
Which part of equal protection of the laws dont you understand, and which part did you not understand that in Alaska as many other states there is no law for Equal Custody.
Oh wait thats not for youre favor, so you dont like it, funny how all you can do is insult, thorugh out false presumptions and accusations, but yet cannot cite anything to back it up.
Money? what Money, I havent degraded myself to have someone else pretend there representing me.
Money for there college, hmm, oh you mean for another person that doesn't want to work,"his mother"
Sorry girls, youre playing with the wrong info, and intentionaly misleading lots of people.

[Jade]

>typical response. hate to dissapoint you but I have my child,
>and like I said ime operating within the sytem useing there
>laws, there regs and there codes.
>Ime supporting my child while he's at both houses, Uh wait
>thats how its supposed to be isn't it?
>youre cinicalness shows youre true disregaurd for other people
>except for youreselves.
>Which part of equal protection of the laws dont you
>understand, and which part did you not understand that in
>Alaska as many other states there is no law for Equal
>Custody.
>Oh wait thats not for youre favor, so you dont like it, funny
>how all you can do is insult, thorugh out false presumptions
>and accusations, but yet cannot cite anything to back it up.
>Money? what Money, I havent degraded myself to have someone
>else pretend there representing me.
>Money for there college, hmm, oh you mean for another person
>that doesn't want to work,"his mother"
>Sorry girls, youre playing with the wrong info, and
>intentionaly misleading lots of people.

What part of LAW do you not understand?  I am not the one who is cynical.  

Do I think that you should be paying child support if you have your child an equal amount of time and make around the same as the other parent?  No,  I don't.  

But I don't know all of the facts of your case (just what you are attempting to pass off as facts), for all I know, you could be making triple what the other parent is making.

So you are representing yourself?  That is scary considering how lacking your posts are in correct spelling and grammar.  

College for your child.  

[leon]

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.

[Jade]

>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.

The same spelling and grammar problem could be said about me?  I seriously doubt it.  By the way, if you write your own pleadings and there are problems with grammar and spelling, it could seriously have a negative impact on your case.

I am not the one misleading people.   And my problem with you has nothing to do with you being a man.  But the misinformation that you spread.  

You are asking us to disprove something that you haven't proven.  

The law is quite simple, you have a child, you support it.

[mistoffolees]

Exactly. I don't know why he doesn't get this.

And you're right on the money on his grammar ans spelling. In some cases, it's just annoying, but in some cases it's almost impossible to figure out what he's saying.

Amazing that he's managed to let some chip on his shoulder run his life.