[planetmark]

"custody", "support", "visitation"... this is all statutorily defined B.S. And it's all financially driven B.S. There has to be a remedy against this statutory crap. There's lots of research and remedy suggestions regarding statutory driver's license requirments, speeding ticket penalties, etc. But what about "child support"? Take away the money (for the mom, and for the state), and mystical magical alikazam, there is suddenly no motivation to fight over the children! Amazing.

Child support falls under FEDERAL statutes, under So******t Security Act, under sec. 666 of title 42. That whole subchapter IV in title 42 is strictly about $$$ finances for the states. To get bucks from the feds, the states "have to" implement certain "laws". Then the states use the subchapter IV Fed statutes as authority for implementing their own statutes. In other words, it doesn't appear to me that 42 USC subchapter IV is mandating or even giving states authority to implement ANY "laws", but rather, they are saying "if you want our money, you have to do this huge list of things to prove yourself worthy to get it". Then the states say "the feds MADE us do it!"

B.S.

Children or not, married or not, YOU, and EACH OF YOU, are affected by 42 USC 666, or will soon be. Period. And it is statutory B.S. And all the good sheeple think to themselves "I'm not getting divorced, so who cares". And all the good sheeple let the Fed's shove this B.S. down our throats, and let our States shove this B.S. down our throats, and nobody seems to have remedy for this one taboo issue. B.S.

And did I mention that I think the whole subject is B.S.??

I've got my CS agent strapped to a 1.5 million dollar "agreement". Just waiting for them to test me now, and send out that statement this week. If I can figure out how to manage this, I may have found my remedy. I want to sieze all their assets, and shut down the whole state operation for a few months while they try to figure out what happened. And all the dads said "Amen".