A must read for the ignorant

[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.