Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:52 am

Ivan wrote:
lol. Ivan, you just don't know when you're being trolled.
So Oz, who are you saying is trolling me – you or Mr Cusick?

My intervention came because I think you’re a bully, and I took exception to the string of insults you dished out on your ‘egg’ thread to nice people, including a member of the moderation team, who never set out to offend anyone.

If you’d been intelligent enough to know how to click on links, you’d realise that it wasn’t my thesis that left-wingers and atheists are more intelligent, but the result of research by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. It’s also a pity that you don’t know the difference between ‘liberals’ (a very dirty word in the UK these days if used with a capital ‘L’) and ‘socialists’, but never mind, keep trying. You might even find out what a ‘social democrat’ is one of these days, although the concept might be too subtle for you. Oh, and by the way, some right-wingers are atheists, there’s no contradiction there.

Mr Cusick came to this forum in response to an invitation which I sent him by e-mail. I may be based in the south-east of England, but that doesn’t mean that this is an exclusively UK forum. Somebody a shade brighter than you might have noticed that a number of Americans and Canadians have registered here, we have an affiliation with an Australian forum which has given us at least one new member so far, and I see that one poster lives in South Africa. If people from outside the UK can join this forum, plenty of others may read its contents from time to time, and I don’t doubt that Mr Cusick, like most politicians, will take any opportunity to share his views with as wide an audience as possible.

you do realize that I'm the troll that got the U.S. News boards shuttered, don't you?
What do you want, a medal? Was that your greatest achievement in life? Personally, I prefer building up forums rather than destroying them, and I guess that most Cutting Edge members probably agree with me.

I shan’t respond again, I’ll leave it to Shirina to moderate you should it become necessary. No doubt as a troll you consider you’ve been successful in provoking me; that’s okay if it’s how you get your kicks, but I haven’t the time to amuse you any longer, and this thread needs to get back on subject.

I'll revisit this in due time....until such time, I'd just like to point out that you seem a bit unhinged so I'll let your head clear a bit before I bite it off.

by jstnay Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:34 am

Like I said with Mr. Cusick, it's all about his wallet, to hell with the children and their needs.

by Guest Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:34 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Erroneous.

Mr. Cusick is legally suitable.

jstnay wrote:
And we know this because???

Your use of the plural “we” is inappropriate. Here’s what I know.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

I don’t know what you know; I don’t care what you know.

by Guest Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:41 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
And, yes...ROB, this guy is absolutely disqualified from being a statesman…

Erroneous.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

by Guest Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:42 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
… I'd just like to point out that you [Ivan] seem a bit unhinged…

Ivan is completely hinged, far too well to be affected in any way by your bullying and your insults. I suspect that Mr. Cusick is equally immune to your bullying and your insults.

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
… so I'll let your head clear a bit before I bite it off.

You lack sufficient “snaps” to “bite it off.”

by Guest Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:43 am

jstnay wrote:
Like I said with Mr. Cusick, it's all about his wallet, to hell with the children and their needs.

When and if ever you post documentation of your unsubstantiated and disrespectful claim, I’ll be all “ears.” Meanwhile, I’ll not hold my breath.

by Shirina Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:16 am

a news article was recently published putting the cost of raising a child at over 225k...or more than 1000 dollars a month for 18 years. Good luck trying to buy food, clothes, provide shelter, heat, water, etc for a child for $500/month. Maybe a third world nation...but not any developed country and certainly not the U.S.

To dimsum and Oz:

I thought about going into this in a more detailed manner but decided not to in order to save A LOT of typing. I really don't know what they were factoring into this $225k figure, but there is no way they can really compute this cost. The local costs of livings vary wildly from one city to the next, and there is no way to know how much a parent would spend on clothing and toys/luxury items for a child, either. Even a rich parent still living with spouse and child may spend very little on their children, but the current system assumes the richer you are, the more you're going to spend. Nor would a parent spend so much income on their child that they lose their home or apartment, but the current system would allow that to happen.

In addition, many of the associated costs of children are costs the parent would be paying with or without a child. Rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. would be paid irrespective of children unless the parent would be homeless without child support. In addition, a parent living at home with his/her own parents still receives a payment not based on what the parent is paying to raise the child, but based on how much the absent parent makes. Thus even if the parent is paying no rent/mortgages at all, it is assumed he/she is.

I know that $500/month was not a huge figure, especially if you live in an area where an apartment can go for $1k or $2k per month. The $500/month figure was pulled from a case I know of in the early 90's in Erie, PA where a 2 bedroom duplex went for $400/month - and that almost always included one or both major utilities (electricity and heat). So keep in mind, I was talking about a 20 year-old figure in a low-rent city. The people in question were also both low-income. A $500/month payment was 75% of the father's total gross income.

by JP Cusick Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:17 pm

jstnay wrote:

Like I said with Mr. Cusick, it's all about his wallet, to hell with the children and their needs.

What I really say is that all the children already have all of their needs filled to overflowing, and that the Child Support needs to quit stealing the money out of the parents' wallets.

Is not it peculiar indeed that the Child Support laws are taking the money out of the wallets, and the Child Support is ONLY only about taking the money as all the c/s does is take and take the money, so it is not me myself who makes this about the money.

The Child Support is all about stealing the money - so yes this is all about the money.

That thieving system is NOT about the needs of the children.

===============================

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

If you don't want to worry about having to pay child support, don't be making no childrens...it's just that simple.

I guess that you must see that as being generous or enlightened of your self to tell other people to be done with their children.

It would seem far more accurate to say - if one wants to get paid then go get a job instead of expecting to be paid for having a child.

What I myself say is to "be fruitful and multiply" and to hell with any claim for Child Support.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:55 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
jstnay wrote:

Like I said with Mr. Cusick, it's all about his wallet, to hell with the children and their needs.

What I really say is that all the children already have all of their needs filled to overflowing, and that the Child Support needs to quit stealing the money out of the parents' wallets.

Is not it peculiar indeed that the Child Support laws are taking the money out of the wallets, and the Child Support is ONLY only about taking the money as all the c/s does is take and take the money, so it is not me myself who makes this about the money.

The Child Support is all about stealing the money - so yes this is all about the money.

That thieving system is NOT about the needs of the children.

===============================

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

If you don't want to worry about having to pay child support, don't be making no childrens...it's just that simple.

I guess that you must see that as being generous or enlightened of your self to tell other people to be done with their children.

It would seem far more accurate to say - if one wants to get paid then go get a job instead of expecting to be paid for having a child.

What I myself say is to "be fruitful and multiply" and to hell with any claim for Child Support.

Jeebus Christophanes....the more you post, the less cogent you become.

First of all, the friend of the court does not KEEP the money so there's no "theiving".
Secondly, keep your thing in your pants if you don't want to risk paying child support.
Third, "be fruitful and multiply and to hell with any claim for Child Support"...? I'd say any chance you had of being taken seriously by anyone but a complete lunatic just went right out the window.

Thanks be to Ivan for bringing us a lolcow....God knows we desperately needed one around here.

by jstnay Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:04 am

ROB

When and if ever you post documentation of your unsubstantiated and disrespectful claim, I’ll be all “ears.” Meanwhile, I’ll not hold my breath.

Well you don't need me to tell you what he says, he's made it very plain what he thinks.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:34 am

jstnay wrote:
ROB

When and if ever you post documentation of your unsubstantiated and disrespectful claim, I’ll be all “ears.” Meanwhile, I’ll not hold my breath.
Well you don't need me to tell you what he says, he's made it very plain what he thinks.

I “don’t need [you] to tell” me anything.

As of 23 November 2011 at 2:34, you’ve posted no documentation of your unsubstantiated and disrespectful claim. I’m still “all ears.” I’m not holding my breath.

by jstnay Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:05 am

ROB

I’m not holding my breath.

You really should, you have nothing to offer except criticism. I've yet to see you contribute anything constructive to the conversation.

Go hold your breath until you turn blue, I don't really care what you think or say.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:54 am

jstnay wrote:
ROB
I’m not holding my breath.
You really should

No, I should not.

jstnay wrote:
you have nothing to offer except criticism to the conversation.

Erroneous.

jstnay wrote:
Go hold your breath until you turn blue

No.

jstnay wrote:
I don't really care what you think or say.

Excellent.

As of 23 November 2011 at 3:54, you’ve still posted no documentation of your unsubstantiated and disrespectful claim. I’m still “all ears.” I’m still not holding my breath.

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:01 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

First of all, the friend of the court does not KEEP the money so there's no "theiving".
Secondly, keep your thing in your pants if you don't want to risk paying child support.

The so-called "friend of the Court" has a true eye witness commentary from a worker on video here = Youtube: Carol Rhodes -Corrupt Child Support.

The States and the Courts are not playing "Robin Hood" as they do NOT steal from the rich and give to the poor - no.

And your declarations for other people not to make love and for them not to have babies shows your own vulgar inhumanity.

by Shirina Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:44 pm

Hello, folks.

This is just a reminder to keep it civil, and several people have been walking a thin line lately between acceptable rebukes and unacceptable insults. If you must engage in a war, at least try to have a CIVIL war. Wink

In the immortal words of George Carlin:

"Say, pardon me, but ... *makes shooting noises* I'm awfully sorry!"

by dimsum Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:22 pm

"Well you don't need me to tell you what he says, he's made it very plain what he thinks"

On this I agree he made it quite clear all on has to do is read his posts simple as that.

Shirina, I understand what you are saying about the 500 dollars but even if i divide it evenly between all family members it probably is above 500. That invludes everything. Now in Washington support goes on income. My ex dil is about to find out one does not keep suppot if one does not deserve it because her daughter is not living with her and yet she did not forward the support to the person (her daughter) who actually has the girl. Fraud is what I think they call it. My sone has 3 chuldren he is paying for and not once has he omplained about caring for his children and he makes much much less the Mr Cusick who is spending time in jail instead of supporting his children. He will not win the election thank goodness.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:12 pm

"The so-called "friend of the Court" has a true eye witness commentary from a worker on video here = Youtube: Carol Rhodes -Corrupt Child Support.

The States and the Courts are not playing "Robin Hood" as they do NOT steal from the rich and give to the poor - no.

And your declarations for other people not to make love and for them not to have babies shows your own vulgar inhumanity." ~ Windsome, Losesome

What exactly is it about liberals that they can't get from "A" to "B" without a detour? I never said people shouldn't have kids...I said that you shouldn't be doing what makes the kids unless you're willing to pay for them.

If you're going to dispute my contentions, try to make sure they're actually MY contentions and not your projections, Sport...unless you just like looking like a person with intellectual challenges.

by jstnay Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:33 pm

Each State seems to have different rules.

In the State I live in Mom pays her child support to the DA, that office in turn credits her with paying it and cuts a check to Dad. They do not keep any of the money, there is a small fee for doing this I believe I was told $5.00.
I do believe this is a good way of taking care of child support when the parents can't or won't work out perhaps a direct deposit from Moms employer to Dads checking/savings acct or the checks come late every month.

by jstnay Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:50 am

Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Child support as USA politics - Page 4 1

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:01 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

What exactly is it about liberals that they can't get from "A" to "B" without a detour? I never said people shouldn't have kids...I said that you shouldn't be doing what makes the kids unless you're willing to pay for them.

If you're going to dispute my contentions, try to make sure they're actually MY contentions and not your projections, Sport...unless you just like looking like a person with intellectual challenges.

It is the same thing, and there is no detour.

You want the normal healthy body functions of human beings to be based on their perception of the Child Support orders for money payments.

I see that as an inhuman call.

And I do not mean to make this as some personal insult to your self because I know many people view humanity in such terms and I reject it.

The Child Support and Custody laws are effectively making it against the law for poorer people to have children, because the evil laws demand cash payments which poorer people can not pay (including working parents).

So the laws are making childbirth as a privilege of the richer citizens, and a punishment to the poorer population, and it is an ugly inhuman injustice going onward.

Of course the law also provides the abortion facilities as another way of stopping the poorer parents from having poor children, because the laws have made children into a matter of money, where people who can not pay the demanded Child Support are those who legally are not to play or else they will be legally punished accordingly.

The laws are anti-human and unnatural and they need to be fought.

by dimsum Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:48 pm

Even if you do not believe it JP it costs money to raise children and if you were only planning on taking care of them if you with their mother you should not have had kids. You went to jail not for non payment but for defacing property. What your children will come to known s that all their Dad worried about was his money and not them. Really you are a dead beat dad and even if you meet the requirements for running for office your actions will prevent that thank goodness.

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:50 am

dimsum wrote:
Really you are a dead beat dad…

Really? I see no documentation of your contention.

dimsum wrote:
even if you meet the requirements for running for office your actions will prevent that thank goodness.

Oh, I dunno. It seems to me (said Booker T) that that’s up to We the People of the Sovereign State of Maryland.

by bobby Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:12 pm

As Sharina said and is absolutely correct, you can not put an exact cost to bringing up kids. Its the same as when a country goes to war, and they go on about the cost of that war, just like kids, much of the expence would be there if you didn't have the kids or went to war. A home has to be heated irrespective of how many people are living there. There may be a slight increase if you chose to live in a larger home due to the children, but that cost would be nominal in comparison to the overall heating cost (in the UK, that cost is offset with "Family Allowance" as you call it child support. Child support in the UK is paid for every child in a houshold with an income of less than £40,000 pa ($62,000 US dollars) and if two parents are earning less than £40,000 each, they still recieve it. Just like a war, any country with a standing army has to pay for that army if they are at war or not, this includes much of the hardware that survives.

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:19 pm

Really you are a dead beat dad and even if you meet the requirements for running for office your actions will prevent that thank goodness.

Just a reminder that direct personal attacks against other posters are prohibited. Evil or Very Mad

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:58 pm

The big beef I have with child support is that it is fixed. The expense of raising a child is extremely variable. Special occasions like Christmas, the child's birthday, and the start of a new school year might make the costs increase temporarily. If an older child gets a job, then the cost would decrease substantially since now the child can pay for many of the things the parents would ordinarily have to buy. Want that new X-box or iPhone? Get a job! If a younger child needs to be sent to professional day care or if a babysitter must be hired, then the cost will be higher. However, if the grandparents help take care of the child absolutely free, the cost will be quite a bit less. A healthy child will cost less to raise than a child with special needs; a child sent to private school will cost more than a child sent to public school. Parents who choose to sock money away in a college fund will pay more for their child than parents who do not. If the child-rearing parent enjoys taking frequent vacations (i.e. travelling), the cost of bringing the child along will be higher. If the child-rearing parent is one that spoils the child, the costs will be higher.

By and large, many of the costs associated with raising children are conditional and are subject to wide variations from month to month. In addition, how much a parent chooses to spend on the children is conditional upon how much disposable income the parent has at any given time. Under normal circumstances, the parents decide how much to spend based on how much they have and whether they feel the cost is worth it. For example, I remember a class trip to New York City that my parents simply couldn't afford because it coincided with having to pay $3,000 in taxes. I had to earn my own money to go (which I did); had the due date for the trip money occurred during a different time of year, they may have been able to give me the cash. Point being here is that child support does not fluxuate based on the absent parent's own personal expenses. If my parents needed to buy a new car so they had reliable transportation to work, my non-essential needs took a back seat to their essential needs. I just didn't get that new prom dress or an iPhone if my parents had to take on a new monthly car payment.

The disparity of income-based child support is very telling at the lower and higher ends of income levels. No father would willingly spend so much on his child that he would make himself homeless yet the man I worked with in Pennsylvania brought home a $17 paycheck after child support was deducted simply because he made just above minimum wage. At the same time, a celebrity, sports star, CEO, or other high earner would not necessarily even spend a fraction of a percent of their total income on their children if they chose not to. Just because you're wealthy does not mean you're going to buy your children mink coats and a Lambourghini.

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:33 pm

Shirina wrote:

Really you are a dead beat dad and even if you meet the requirements for running for office your actions will prevent that thank goodness.

Just a reminder that direct personal attacks against other posters are prohibited.

I simply must try to defend that poster as I do not see that as a personal attack even though it is one.

The government of the United States has declared myself and other parents as being "deadbeats" which means the poster is only referring to me by a legally recognized terminology.

Link here = Federal Deadbeat Parent Punishment Act of 1998, and this link here too = US Dept of Justice - (DPPA) Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act.

Since the USA has legalized the name-calling to slander and demonize us parents then it is a fact that the poster was not really giving a personal attack against me.

And we might notice that the law is entitled as for "Punishment" in that it is meant to punish parents and NOT to support children.

So I do not mean to interfere with any Moderation of this Forum, but legally and factually the poster was not really calling names but was only using legally appropriate terminology.

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:49 pm

dimsum wrote:

Even if you do not believe it JP it costs money to raise children and if you were only planning on taking care of them if you with their mother you should not have had kids. You went to jail not for non payment but for defacing property. What your children will come to known s that all their Dad worried about was his money and not them. Really you are a dead beat dad and even if you meet the requirements for running for office your actions will prevent that thank goodness.

I realize that in the USA that my gov here does label parents as like myself as being "deadbeats" but I have no regrets about having my son and I am happy about me being a father even though my own government trashes me for my parenting.

I do not deny that it takes money to raise every child, but I do deny that it takes the Child Support money to raise any child. There is a huge big difference between raising the children and the evil Child Support system.

I did go to jail the first two (2) times for the enforcement of the Child Support order, and THEN then I decided to strike back against the Child Support thieves by my defacing (spray painting) of their property. I did not approve of me being on the defensive so I took on the offense by attacking my enemy the Child Support system.

I expect all children to grow up and THEN turn around and see the true reality of the evil laws which hurt their parents and hurt their family so I trust the truth to come out in every case.

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:15 pm

The government of the United States has declared myself and other parents as being "deadbeats" which means the poster is only referring to me by a legally recognized terminology.

LOL! I had no idea that "deadbeat" was a legal term. Huh, you learn something new every day.

Well, then, if you don't perceive it as an attack and the word is actually a legal term, then I won't stand in the way. No harm, no foul.

by jstnay Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:15 pm

Mr. Cusick's child support is moot since his child is now about 34 yrs. old and as HE said the support he was required to pay ended many years ago.

I doubt he was required to pay much at that time. My Sister lived in Southern California and when her husband decided he no longer wanted to be married and moved out HE sat up the rules.
He would pay $150 per month for 3 children plus either keep them on his health insurance or pay the premium for Mom to keep them on hers, there was no difference in his or hers. He also told her if she sued him for more he would quit paying until it came to court, little did she know he would have lost his job had he done that since they would have attached his wages. She wouldn't have done that anyway, it's not her style.
When they were married he would NOT allow her to work so she had zero experience in anything, she worked at woolworths for one yr. after she graduated from high school, then they got married.
She took the first job she found, they HAD to live in a horrible neighborhood because that was all she could afford. She slept with a loaded Shotgun next to her bed, that's how bad it was.
He never contributed anything to the childrens upbringing besides the $150, her children were into everything at school, the girls were cheerleaders and her son was in sports. She paid for everything they needed and that was a lot.

This was about the same time give or take a couple of years that Mr. Cusick says he was separated and then divorced.

Southern California is very expensive to live as most of you know.

I'd like him to tell us what else he's running on. Also most of the time he spent in either Jail or Prison was for defacing Public Property NOT child support.

by jackthelad Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 pm

JP Cusick, says he has served two terms of imprisonment, is there no laws in America that stops a person who has served time in prison from becoming a Senator or Congressman.
What is the difference in civil law imprisonment and criminal law imprisonment, i know you can be sent to prison for committing a robbery, and you can be sent to prison for not obeying what some people might term as state robbery, trying to force someone to pay money they haven't got.

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:28 pm

JP Cusick, says he has served two terms of imprisonment, is there no laws in America that stops a person who has served time in prison from becoming a Senator or Congressman.

Nope. Doing time in prison, even for a major felony like murder, rape, and armed robbery cannot prohibit someone from running for and fulfilling a public office. It is highly unlikely that a convicted rapist will ever win an election, of course, but they are not barred from holding public office. The senate can vote to expel someone they deem unfit for the office, but otherwise, no. If the candidate meets the age requirements, citizenship, and inhabitancy (for state offices) requirements, they are eligible.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:34 pm

Why don't they use welfare or wage garnishment instead of prison in the US? Too humane perhaps?

by jstnay Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:42 pm

Mr. Cusick server 3 months and 9 months for non-support.
Mr. Cusick served 18 months, 14 months and 36 months for defacing Public Buildings, that according to his web site.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:47 pm

Mr. Cusick would have served no gaol time for non-support if the USA had welfare or wage garnishment.

Two posts up... I ask a valid and intelligent question... I encourage you all to ignore it in the same way that jstnay did... focus on the man and not the message.

by jstnay Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:00 pm

Mr. Cusick would have served no gaol time for non-support if the USA had welfare or wage garnishment.

Two posts up... I ask a valid and intelligent question... I encourage you all to ignore it in the same way that jstnay did... focus on the man and not the message.

Usually if the parents are poor enough for welfare they get it. Garnishment is for the willful, I've never met anyone that spent time in jail for non-support except if they got picked up and then they can bail out or go on their own recognizance until their court date.

by jstnay Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:01 pm

Shirina, are you allowed to multinic on this board?

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:10 pm

jstnay wrote: Garnishment is for the willful.

If garnishment is for those who wilfully refuse to pay child support then what is gaol about?

PS: Is that comment about multinic's related to me perchance? If it is... I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but I have only one nic here and coming from an Australian IP... that's not too hard for admin to discern.

by jstnay Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:24 pm

If garnishment is for those who wilfully refuse to pay child support then what is gaol about?

Mr. Cusick would have to tell you I do not live in the same State he does. Here if you don't show up for your Court Date you can be jailed.

PS: Is that comment about multinic's related to me perchance? If it is... I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but I have only one nic here and coming from an Australian IP... that's not too hard for admin to discern.

Not necessarily, but you do sound like the Bunny. I've seen others use more than one nic, I think they changed them which is confusing to us that are fairly new.

by jstnay Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:29 pm

I was on Jury Duty one time and two women went shopping during lunch and came back late and not just 5 mins.
The Judge fined them each $500, the next time they came back late the Judge was really angry, but it was legit since the elevator fell and they were stuck.

They did not do it again and that trial was a month long, he suspended the $500 at the end of the trial.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:47 pm

jstnay wrote:
If garnishment is for those who wilfully refuse to pay child support then what is gaol about?
Mr. Cusick would have to tell you I do not live in the same State he does. Here if you don't show up for your Court Date you can be jailed.

How perfectly punitive is the USA.

PS: Is that comment about multinic's related to me perchance? If it is... I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but I have only one nic here and coming from an Australian IP... that's not too hard for admin to discern.
Not necessarily, but you do sound like the Bunny. I've seen others use more than one nic, I think they changed them which is confusing to us that are fairly new.

Ah well... I am guilty of using more than one nic, but always one at a time and I'm most upfront about it... most of the time. Monikers are clothes... why wear the same thing over and over... when there is a Sappho, Court Jester or plain ol' Nom de Plume to to try on.

Currently I am True Blue on account of that being an iconic yet ironic Aussie saying Smile

Excerpt from John Williamson's song True Blue (That's the iconic bit)

Hey True Blue
Don't say you've gone
Say you've knocked off for a smoko
And you'll be back later on
Hey True Blue

True Blue
Give it to me straight
Face to face
Are you really disappearing
Just another dying race
Hey True Blue

And then this...

The town's standing was recorded in 1670 by John Ray in the first edition of A Compleat Collection of English Proverbs:

"Coventry had formerly the reputation for dying of blues; insomuch that true blue became a Proverb to signifie one that was always the same and like himself."

source

Reckon a lot of 'true blue' Brits got sent to coventry in them bad ol' days of convicts and colonization.

I've never been a bunny tho...

by dimsum Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:45 pm

Hell-o True Blue nice to meet you... Smile

Morning Jst how be you?

by Sponsored content