Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?

I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children.

The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while wealthy men
do not have this risk.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
om...
I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to
pay for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children.



....the same way a porcupine chooses not to fly.

Ray Gordon wrote:
I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because

Bull****!

Sam

Ray Gordon wrote:

I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two. If after the sadness of losing losing your wife
to divorce,
you slip through the cracks in depression and don't qualify for any
financial assistance
and resort to dumpster diving to support yourself, you obviously have no
means to pay child
support. You will not go to prison not having the means to pay child
support.


This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children.

It is a good reason not to have children and there are many more good
reasons, too.
But with the million of good women who don't want to get married, why
even bother with that.


The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while wealthy men
do not have this risk.

Poor men in any society can only afford to work and have a few beers
because the rest of the money
must to support the wife and kids. That is true in all cultures on the
planet.

Wealthy men can by anything they want and make as many mistakes as they
wish because they have the money
or pay for whatever they want.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:49:39 GMT, in article
, enquiring minds
spewed forth....
Ray Gordon wrote:

I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two. If after the sadness of losing losing your wife
to divorce,
you slip through the cracks in depression and don't qualify for any
financial assistance
and resort to dumpster diving to support yourself, you obviously have no
means to pay child
support. You will not go to prison not having the means to pay child
support.


This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children.

It is a good reason not to have children and there are many more good
reasons, too.
But with the million of good women who don't want to get married, why
even bother with that.


The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while wealthy men
do not have this risk.

Poor men in any society can only afford to work and have a few beers
because the rest of the money
must to support the wife and kids. That is true in all cultures on the
planet.

Wealthy men can by anything they want and make as many mistakes as they
wish because they have the money
or pay for whatever they want.


If such men are in no condition to support a child, they should use a
little thing called a CONDOM... or abstain from sex completely.

And yes, the same applies to women... it's called BIRTH CONTROL... use
it.

--
"Eloquence is hard!" - Talking G.I. Joe

"Fact-free cow**** claim fails" - Andre sympathises with Joe

FACT: Female is Nature's default gender setting

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want
to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support,
which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two. If after the sadness of losing losing your wife
to divorce,
you slip through the cracks in depression and don't qualify for any
financial assistance
and resort to dumpster diving to support yourself, you obviously have no
means to pay child
support. You will not go to prison not having the means to pay child
support.


This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children.

It is a good reason not to have children and there are many more good
reasons, too.
But with the million of good women who don't want to get married, why
even bother with that.


The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while wealthy
men
do not have this risk.

Poor men in any society can only afford to work and have a few beers
because the rest of the money
must to support the wife and kids. That is true in all cultures on the
planet.

Wealthy men can by anything they want and make as many mistakes as they
wish because they have the money
or pay for whatever they want.


If such men are in no condition to support a child, they should use a
little thing called a CONDOM... or abstain from sex completely.

Abstain from eating you tub of lard.



And yes, the same applies to women... it's called BIRTH CONTROL... use
it.

Birth control is the Female's duty since she's the one who gets pregnant.




--
"Eloquence is hard!" - Talking G.I. Joe

"Fact-free cow**** claim fails" - Andre sympathises with Joe

FACT: Female is Nature's default gender setting

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Avenger" wrote in message
news:ZkxYg.303$4T6.91@trnddc02...


I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want
to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support,
which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two. If after the sadness of losing losing your wife
to divorce,
you slip through the cracks in depression and don't qualify for any
financial assistance
and resort to dumpster diving to support yourself, you obviously have
no
means to pay child
support. You will not go to prison not having the means to pay child
support.


This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children.

It is a good reason not to have children and there are many more good
reasons, too.
But with the million of good women who don't want to get married, why
even bother with that.


The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while
wealthy
men
do not have this risk.

Poor men in any society can only afford to work and have a few beers
because the rest of the money
must to support the wife and kids. That is true in all cultures on
the
planet.

Wealthy men can by anything they want and make as many mistakes as they
wish because they have the money
or pay for whatever they want.


If such men are in no condition to support a child, they should use a
little thing called a CONDOM... or abstain from sex completely.

Abstain from eating you tub of lard.



And yes, the same applies to women... it's called BIRTH CONTROL... use
it.

Birth control is the Female's duty since she's the one who gets pregnant.

Classic hiding one's head in the sand. Bull**** to you, boyo. If being
pregnant is ONLY a woman's concern, then you wouldn't be complaining about
having to support your *******s. Of course, any child of yours might be
better off never knowing who fathered it.

CWQ



--
"Eloquence is hard!" - Talking G.I. Joe

"Fact-free cow**** claim fails" - Andre sympathises with Joe

FACT: Female is Nature's default gender setting

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"enquiring minds" wrote in message
...
Ray Gordon wrote:

I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to
pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support,
which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.

Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two.

Why not?
The courts do often enough.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

YooperBoyka wrote:
"enquiring minds" wrote in message
...
Ray Gordon wrote:
I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to
pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support,
which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.
Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two.

Why not?
The courts do often enough.

So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake?

That doesn't make sense ... (8-(

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:
"enquiring minds" wrote in message
...
Ray Gordon wrote:
I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want
to pay
for one for me, I'd do it too.

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support,
which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.
Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two.

Why not?
The courts do often enough.

So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake?

That doesn't make sense ... (8-(

What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL
get you incarcerated.
Pretending it won't will solve nothing.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com