Layoffs, courts put some dads in jail

our forefathers enacted was to make it illegal to imprison
people for debt. they saw what it had degenerated into in europe.

and then along came the legion of scumbag lawyers,
and greedy feminists wanting handouts and privilege.

created contempt of court as a whitewash for everything and
anything feminists wanted.

with the byproduct being the destruction of the family, and marriage.

Happy Father's Day.

George Bush the 1st signed an administrative order waiving the constitutional rights of American males for the welfare recovery act. Those rights have never been given back. Wage slavery is now legal. The only way to stop this serious abuse of human rights is to stand up to the government. They are supposed to do what "we" want them to do aren't they? I mean, that is why they earn so much of our money isn't it? The system has failed the majority of the people, it now serves the elite without guile, without pretext, only propaganda that most seem to want to believe as the truth scares most people. Since the same type of crap has been done in every industrialized country in the world you really can't chalk it up to coincedence can you? The family unit has all but been destroyed. Both men and women are being froced into the workplace to survive, leaving the raising of their children to others for the most part. The masses are being doped into submission by the "mental health professionals" that use a book funded and designed by chemical companies. Welcome to the new age of corporate facism. Where your individual self will be lost, and your only purpose will be to consume, and produce. Has anyone seen the movie Eon Flux? The concept of what they had done is going on right now. How about V, for Vendetta? The correlation between what was supposed to be fiction and what is happening around the globe should make some people wonder. I believe it is time that people stand for people. Even when a person has cancer, when it is bad enough they like to cut it out, get rid of it. Our government has had cancer for a long time. History proves that all of the other types of cures have not worked, for it is a terrible cancer. The only solution, kill the offensive cancer. Cut it out, burn it, and eventually this cancer will be another history lesson of what we shouldn't do in the future.
I guess when real action is needed any other form of therapy could be seen as colusion, whether as a co-conspirator, or as a dupe. Almost like a great ape that feels threatened, if they take the time to display before they act they end up in a zoo, or worse. If it is true that there is strength in numbers then we have the edge. Without the tacit compliance of the majority the minority could not control. If the majority of people that are being garnished for child support demanded equal rights as parents, 50% support of the children as well as 50% custody, and refused to pay, demanded to be prosecuted, how long do you think the system would last? My guess is it would only last about 6 months at the very worst. The system needs us to make their contrived world go round. Without our compliance it would collapse. I guess it takes integrity, courage, and a sense of responsibility to take a real stand.
What I have suggested is within our rights under our ancient, and deluded Constitution of this country. In affect it would take a person that was a true patriot to take action. Either that or we need to learn that the comfort zone that we hold so dearly to is part of the chains that this system of control uses to keep us at bay.

David A. DeLong

I suggest that the following question be asked repeatedly of each member of congress:

Dear Senator/Representative whatever:

I see that you voted for bill XYZ.

When you were given your position in congress by the voters of your state/district you took an oath to adhere to the constitution of the United States. In light of that oath please refer me to the section of the constitution that authorizes congress to take the actions described in this bill.

The ONLY interest the damned state has in determining the level of support for children is that the bare MINIMUM level of support is being met just like in intact relationships.

Any further level of support has to be worked out between the parents like in intact relationships.

Anything else is state tyranny which leads resistance and resistance leads violence an example being the murder/suicide scenarios we have been too accustomed to reading and hearing about.

It is not the business of the state to decide if the kids need orthodontic work or if private school is in order for them; only that the bare minimum of support is being met and nothing else.

You're right Luek.

Unfortunately the law is used to promote the interest of state officials rather than the state (as if they woulld recognize a difference).

State officials interests are served by passing laws that pander to lobbyists to help in the next election, setting up a bureaucracies that keep masses of people busy with no productive output (but increases the number of employees and the budgets the officials oversee), bringing in federal dollars by collecting hostage payments (oops, I mean child support), increasing federal dollars collected by forever raising hostage payments, creating more single parent households so that more federal dollars come in and more bureaucracy and employees are necessary to process these extra households and federal dollars, glorifying single moms to keep the whole thing progressing ......

ad infinitum

It's a sick world we live in.

I have to disagree a little on the 'bare minimum' of child support.

I understand the need for father's rights when it comes to custody and support issues, but even if the day comes when men are treated fairly, I still think there will be a need for judicial involvement. There are just too many variables.

Many times a parent uses visitation and money issues to control the other parent. Part of the reason for judicial involvement is to curtail this. Perhaps it should not be based on a formula but based on past behavior and commitments. Then a one night stand that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy would have a different amount set than a planned pregnancy where support and lifestyle had already been agreed on and established.

If you do not believe courts should dictate how much support should be paid, then why should they dictate visitation/custody? After all, they do not dictate this in an intact relationship.

In my situation, we did agree without any court involvement. He paid for the home where the kids and I lived for about a year and a half after we broke up. Then he just 'forgot ' to pay the mortgage, as he was on vacation in Jamaica. (He likes his single life and has no interest in shared custody).

With the help of attorneys we drew it up, so his child support would be a 'court order'. The home I live in is in my name and he pays a monthly amount directly to me. He has never disputed the amount and he proudly supports his kids. I am glad I have the security of the court order so my home will not go into foreclosure if he gets 'forgetful'. It has been this way for a few years. I would never be able to budget or plan if I had no idea how much he was going to pay each month.

Just this week we had our first negative conversation about child support. I told him I was getting married soon (a surprise to everyone as I have always sworn off marriage). He asked if he could quit paying because he does not want another man living in the home that he pays for! (his words).

I think his request to stop child support is more out of irrational jealousy and not out of legitimate reasons to stop supporting his kids. Thank goodness I am not at the mercy of his irrational emotions when it comes to his child support.

I estimate that his child support goes towards 50% of the children's lifestyle, which is the way it should be, IMO. It is a lifestyle beyond the bare minimum, but it was the lifestyle he agreed to before pregnancy, during pregnancy, at birth, and for several years afterwards even after we broke up.

BTW-He is the one that left the relationship.