A must read for the ignorant

[mistoffolees]

>What the heck are you babbling about, that was not the
>discussion here.

That's why I've asked you repeatedly to state your argument in plain English. So far, you've done nothing but blind attacks on the current system with bogus arguments about how the Supreme Court has ruled that the current system is wrong, but you've never stated exactly what you're saying. Neither have you stated what you propose to fix the 'problem', but that's too much to ask.

>At least though you finainly admit "MAN" is the one paying, so
>discrimitory actions torwards a the opposit gender , ie. man
>is youre preference.


Care to try that in English?

If it says what I THINK it says, you couldn't be more wrong. Generally, the person with higher income pays support - regardless of gender. I think you'll find pleny of women paying support if you bother to open your eyes.

[Ref]

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

[leon clugston]

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.

[leon clugston]

>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.

[mistoffolees]

>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


It would be helpful if Leon would state specifically what his position is so that it can be discussed.

Instead, he makes wild statements about how the system is entirely unconstitutional and unfair to men.

I generally speak up when he starts making statements which could lead someone into making a major mistake - such as questioning the authority of local courts to set alimony or similar statements. I would speak up just as quickly on another board if someone were making the discredited statement that income tax is illegal and you don't have to pay the IRS.

There is a real danger here that people will take bad advice and get themselves into serious trouble. His posts lead in that direction, so I challenge them.

[mistoffolees]

And, yet, you are incapable of stating your position in clear English. All you've done so far is try to discredit the system and claim that it's inherently unfair and that the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Why is it that it's so hard for you to state your position in clear English?

Anyone talking your advice and trying to work outside the system (or tell a judge that he/she doesn't have the right to set child support, for example) is going to get burned. Big time.

[KAT]

Child support is simply another form of slavery:  involuntary servitude. Which goes against the 13th Amendment to US Constitution.

KAT

[mistoffolees]

>Child support is simply another form of slavery:  involuntary
>servitude. Which goes against the 13th Amendment to US
>Constitution.
>
>KAT


Wrong. Thanks for playing.

[lucky]

Do you pay or are you paid?

If all CS was guaranteed to go directly to the child's needs, I'd agree with you.  But, since there is no requirement for the recipient to account for how they spend it, well....

It's hard to say it's okay when the kids DON'T benefit from CS paid by their NCP, isn't it?

[em]Lucky

Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]

[mistoffolees]

>Do you pay or are you paid?

I pay - a great deal - even though I have 50% physical custody.

>
>If all CS was guaranteed to go directly to the child's needs,
>I'd agree with you.  But, since there is no requirement for
>the recipient to account for how they spend it, well....

There's no legal requirement for a married person to account for how they spend money, either. Or for an unmarried parent. Expecting someone to mandate how money is spent is silly.

If it comes down to quibbling over how a particular dollar is spent, you're missing the point. The CP provides a home - how much does that cost? He/She provides transportation. Cooking. Cleaning. And much more. Many of the people who complain about how the money is spent are looking at only the most trivial surface items ("I spend $500 per month on child support and she only buys $100 worth of clothes at the most"). When you look at the cost of raising a child, the child support in most cases is used on raising the child.

>
>It's hard to say it's okay when the kids DON'T benefit from CS
>paid by their NCP, isn't it?

If you have evidence that this is a common problem, feel free to present it. And please provide REAL evidence, not just anecdotal whining. And then feel free to propose a solution which eliminates the problem.

Bottom line is that the couple got divorced. They're not going to agree on how every penny is spent. The normal solution is for the custodial parent to have primary responsiblity for determining how the money is spent.

If you object to that, you can stay married, or you can demand wording in your court order that specifies how the money is spent (this can be done) or you can demand wording in the court order that the NCP pays certain expenses directly (this can also be done).

Complaining that the system is flawed because some people are bad parents just doesn't make sense. There is no perfect solution, but the system works pretty well on the whole.