JP Cusick and Child Support

[ConHog]

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.

True story. When my son was 2 years old. I walked in on his mom and another man. He ran ( I don't know , just because a 6'1" 190 lb man in camo wearing a pistol on his hip walked in on you porking his wife LOL) anyway I grabbed her by hair and heel and through her into the street. No clothes, no nothing. Fuck her. She never even came to divorce court. My kid is 19 now and has no recollection of his mom, he's never talked to her, he's never seen her, he's never received a dime from her. She's moved away now but for years she lived within an hour of us, and didn't make a single effort to be a part of her kid's life.

Here's another one. My sons' best friend is the same age as he is. When they were 15 the dad got locked up for drugs , within 2 weeks the mom had moved in with a boyfriend and told my kid's friend that he had to find another place to live because her boyfriend didn't like him.

yeah being a shit head parent has NOTHING to do with sex

Now on the plus side. My current wife is mom to my son, she didn't ask him to call her mom, he did on his own and she loves it, and when we found out that my kid's friend was living in the community center it was she who went and got him and brought him home. Proving their is more to being a parent than DNA.

[Kathianne]

True story. When my son was 2 years old. I walked in on his mom and another man. He ran ( I don't know , just because a 6'1" 190 lb man in camo wearing a pistol on his hip walked in on you porking his wife LOL) anyway I grabbed her by hair and heel and through her into the street. No clothes, no nothing. Fuck her. She never even came to divorce court. My kid is 19 now and has no recollection of his mom, he's never talked to her, he's never seen her, he's never received a dime from her. She's moved away now but for years she lived within an hour of us, and didn't make a single effort to be a part of her kid's life.

Here's another one. My sons' best friend is the same age as he is. When they were 15 the dad got locked up for drugs , within 2 weeks the mom had moved in with a boyfriend and told my kid's friend that he had to find another place to live because her boyfriend didn't like him.

yeah being a shit head parent has NOTHING to do with sex

Now on the plus side. My current wife is mom to my son, she didn't ask him to call her mom, he did on his own and she loves it, and when we found out that my kid's friend was living in the community center it was she who went and got him and brought him home. Proving their is more to being a parent than DNA.

Yep, we are in agreement here. Can't stand a guy like J.P. that chose all the wrong things, then blames the courts for 'destroying families.' Toad.

[darin]

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid.

Contained in that statement is an idea that makes my skin crawl. Our society is fucked when we create the label of 'good father' by a father agreeing with extortion; going along with it.

Let me get divorced, and you'd see my wife with the house, and half my pay as "child support". It's a travesty of justice. For every ONE story of a wife skipping out on child support, I bet I can find 50 of men being financially raped "in the interest of their offspring". All so they can be a 'good father'. I am NOT saying your ex was financially molested in whatever the courts or state thought was reasonable - I'm saying our definitions of 'reasonable' today are 1000000% slanted against the father.

[Kathianne]

Contained in that statement is an idea that makes my skin crawl. Our society is fucked when we create the label of 'good father' by a father agreeing with extortion; going along with it.

Let me get divorced, and you'd see my wife with the house, and half my pay as "child support". It's a travesty of justice. For every ONE story of a wife skipping out on child support, I bet I can find 50 of men being financially raped "in the interest of their offspring". All so they can be a 'good father'. I am NOT saying your ex was financially molested in whatever the courts or state thought was reasonable - I'm saying our definitions of 'reasonable' today are 1000000% slanted against the father.

You'd be so wrong there. In our case I declined alimony, it would have prolonged the divorce, which took nearly 4 years to begin with. If I 'took' the house, I couldn't have made the payments, I wasn't working and hadn't for 14 years. In retrospect, considering the hearing and such, probably should have taken it, but spilt milk and all that.

In fact, to avoid the fights that would have ensued, I agreed to let child support stop at 18, though the court appointed children's lawyer added some stipulation that at 18 they child(ren) could choose to sue him for college tuition, none did.

My kids went from living in 5 BD, 3 story with subasement, to a 2 bd apartment for nearly a year. My folks paid for that, since we were in process of divorce and he decided that $150 a month was plenty for 3 kids. LOL! When all was said and done, he had to pay $36k a year, until the oldest was 18, then it was reduced by a 1/3 and so on.

They never got braces, they couldn't be in traveling leagues, they couldn't take class trips that cost over $15. Meanwhile their dad bought a 6 BD house, with a sub basement, (he really likes that feature I guess). His 'new kids' have a nanny and have already been to Europe and Hawaii, twice. So yeah, he screwed his kids over financially, considering what he had.

Nevertheless, as they finished college, they've pretty much all made up with him, though they know he is really all about him. The weirdest thing is at my daughter's wedding, his 'not so new wife' basically apologized-for what? He's now doing the same to her. The kids get screwed.

I'm not even touching what they man did psychologically to all of us. Should have left him in second month of marriage, that would have been smart.

[darin]

I'm not talking about your case, Kath - I'm talking about, without ANY exceptions, every case of divorce w/ children I've encountered in real life. I'm talking about probably 10 guys I know who are completely screwed by the 'system'. I don't know one woman without custody who was likewise hosed over "in the name of the kids". Our society is blatantly anti-male, anti-father, anti-white, and if the man is male, white, and, say, Christian? There's no hope.

[jimnyc]

I'm not talking about your case, Kath - I'm talking about, without ANY exceptions, every case of divorce w/ children I've encountered in real life. I'm talking about probably 10 guys I know who are completely screwed by the 'system'. I don't know one woman without custody who was likewise hosed over "in the name of the kids". Our society is blatantly anti-male, anti-father, anti-white, and if the man is male, white, and, say, Christian? There's no hope.

My parents divorced when I was 11 and had 4 children. Many would say my Mom was "screwed" by the system, as my Dad got custody of all 4 children and the house...

Now, since Mom wasn't making barely any money, and Dad did, and even though he had 4 kids to raise - no CS was awarded. And he also didn't have to pay her anything (half the value of the house when I turned 18).

Now, my eldest brother divorced his 1st wife when he had 2 children. They split their belongings and the children stayed with their Mom. My brother had to pay CS. Being that he made a minimal amount of money, he only had to pay a percentage of that minimum that he made - which he has done faithfully.

The courts are supposed to have the children in the home that is best for their future. CS should be based on the needs of the children and then the amount made by the payee figured in. In many cases there isn't even CS at all.

But back to the topic - and JP - he's not arguing over the fairness of the courts, or whether or not women win more such cases than men. He's simply arguing that ANY parent, who is no longer with their children - shouldn't have to pay anything or bear any responsibility towards the upbringing of the child they brought into this world. I think that argument appears to be towards both sexes, and directly towards CS laws regardless of whether it's a man or woman directed to pay. THAT'S where I have an issue. BOTH parents should know the day they agree to have a baby that they are both responsible regardless of what happens. So JP, or others, should KNOW the minute they walk away that they will/should be paying something towards that child - but some like JP feel they should be able to cut the ties and run away from their responsibilities. I say that's a bunch of horseshit.

[JP Cusick]

Contained in that statement is an idea that makes my skin crawl. Our society is xxxxed when we create the label of 'good father' by a father agreeing with extortion; going along with it.

Let me get divorced, and you'd see my wife with the house, and half my pay as "child support". It's a travesty of justice. For every ONE story of a wife skipping out on child support, I bet I can find 50 of men being financially raped "in the interest of their offspring". All so they can be a 'good father'. I am NOT saying your ex was financially molested in whatever the courts or state thought was reasonable - I'm saying our definitions of 'reasonable' today are 1000000% slanted against the father.

I'm not talking about your case, Kath - I'm talking about, without ANY exceptions, every case of divorce w/ children I've encountered in real life. I'm talking about probably 10 guys I know who are completely screwed by the 'system'. I don't know one woman without custody who was likewise hosed over "in the name of the kids". Our society is blatantly anti-male, anti-father, anti-white, and if the man is male, white, and, say, Christian? There's no hope.

You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

[JP Cusick]

That made less sense than the previous post. What's the crime? Who is committing it? Who is the victim?

The crime is the State persecuting parents and destroying families and interfering where the State does not belong - it is a State crime against our population.

The victims are the parents and the children and the family unit and our society is a victim of those ignorant and evil Child Support and Custody laws.

The accused parents have NOT committed any crime and there is no victim accordingly.

[Kathianne]

You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

You never reference your case, because you acted irresponsibly. Indeed if any wish to find out what you have 'referenced to yourself' on other boards, is that you acted 'badly' as a husband and father, but later, when you wished to 'have a relationship' and for some reason-like perhaps being gone for years, then returning and refusing to meet your obligations, then having the debt threatened to be taken from pay, went on your 'adventurerous and fun' graffiti rampage against government buildings. Then to jail. Hmmm, it was the courts standing in your way?

You haven't a clue to why dmp feels the way he does. I don't know either, but have some clues from knowing him over the years. If he felt 'trapped' and needed to escape he'd do so in a way to try and help his family, to the best of his ability.

You claim the system 'interferes with families' in his case there may be an argument that in his case, the system makes him try and hold onto his family, by its very existence. He does not want to pay the price perhaps in relationships or finances. That's an adult decision on his part, not without personal costs. You know, how parents should act when in tight places.

dmp has made clear his feelings regarding alimony/child support, etc over the years. They are very different than yours though. He'd never go for getting on disability to avoid debt and certainly not make a career of running for offices on a platform such as your nonsense. You haven't any intention of 'winning a race' you just want your own internet graffiti in place.

You pity yourself and your own created stupid life. dmp wouldn't do that.

[jimnyc]

You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

JP - why do you keep blaming things on others and dance around the direct questions asked of you? YOU are the one running for office, no one else on this board.

So I'll ask again - DID you walk away from your family and then refuse to pay anything financially to support your child? DID you vandalize aka paint public buildings? Did you pay a price when and if the state caught up to you for not paying CS? WHY do you think you shouldn't help pay for a child YOU brought into this world?

Sorry, but this IS personal. You are running for office and will be representing people like many on this board. People will want to know your stance on issues, AND whether or not you have a stake in it based on EXPERIENCE.

One thing I see you have that will help you in politics is your ability to dance around DIRECT questions and/or just dodge questions. C'mon, you came here, at least finally directly answer my questions. If not, I guess I'll just assume the worst.

Or do you think people will blindly vote for a dead beat dad that refuses to be honest?

[jimnyc]

You never reference your case, because you acted irresponsibly. Indeed if any wish to find out what you have 'referenced to yourself' on other boards, is that you acted 'badly' as a husband and father, but later, when you wished to 'have a relationship' and for some reason-like perhaps being gone for years, then returning and refusing to meet your obligations, then having the debt threatened to be taken from pay, went on your 'adventurerous and fun' graffiti rampage against government buildings. Then to jail. Hmmm, it was the courts standing in your way?

You haven't a clue to why dmp feels the way he does. I don't know either, but have some clues from knowing him over the years. If he felt 'trapped' and needed to escape he'd do so in a way to try and help his family, to the best of his ability.

You claim the system 'interferes with families' in his case there may be an argument that in his case, the system makes him try and hold onto his family, by its very existence. He does not want to pay the price perhaps in relationships or finances. That's an adult decision on his part, not without personal costs. You know, how parents should act when in tight places.

dmp has made clear his feelings regarding alimony/child support, etc over the years. They are very different than yours though. He'd never go for getting on disability to avoid debt and certainly not make a career of running for offices on a platform such as your nonsense. You haven't any intention of 'winning a race' you just want your own internet graffiti in place.

You pity yourself and your own created stupid life. dmp wouldn't do that.

DMP and I obviously look at the CS a little differently - but I'll guarantee you that if he and his wife divorced, he would do his VERY best to be a part of his kids life and make sure they have everything they need. He may not be happy with how courts intervene, or their "demands", but he wouldn't turn his back on his kids and his responsibilities either. There is a HUGE difference between DMP's stance, and what JP did to his family and is now running on as a political stance.

[jimnyc]

Ok, I am seeing the light.... LOL I think I have an idea why JP is "angry". I guess JAIL and being a VANDAL simply because you can't do the right thing will make you a little upset! I'd probably be embarrassed about answering direct questions too... VERY VERY SAD that someone would go this low....

Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint writing out the words "Child Support is Legalized Stealing", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and, "Michael Harris Thief Master", and, "Inside this Court is a Den of Thieves". No other damage was done. He just wanted others to know what was going on. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, served 18 months in the County Detention Center. Then 1998 Mr. Cusick went and painted the 2 pillars in front of the child support enforcement office in Leonardtown with similar words of, Child Support Thieves, and, "Thou shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, pleaded guilty again, served 14 months in County Detention Center.

It was reasoned then that the local Courts just enforce the unjust child support laws and do not make the laws so after release in July 2000, Mr. Cusick traveled to Annapolis and spray painted the two pillars of the Maryland State House with red spray paint saying, "Child Support Thieves", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, refused to enter plea, had jury trial, sentenced to 3 years in State prison for the misdemeanor. There was no other damage done. Mr. Cusick does not have any felony, these actions were all minor offenses. He considers the actions to have been political crimes and thus he was a political prisoner. He was released from the Maryland D.O.C (prison) in August 2003, and his child support case is closed.

[ConHog]

DMP and I obviously look at the CS a little differently - but I'll guarantee you that if he and his wife divorced, he would do his VERY best to be a part of his kids life and make sure they have everything they need. He may not be happy with how courts intervene, or their "demands", but he wouldn't turn his back on his kids and his responsibilities either. There is a HUGE difference between DMP's stance, and what JP did to his family and is now running on as a political stance.

From what little I know of DMP I would concur. Unfortunately , most in this country are not as honorable and yes I believe that when it comes to children the state should absolutely intervene when a parent isn't meeting their obligations. Obviously you can't force them to be good parents, but you can force them to financially support their children.

And I am QUITE sympathetic to those who are fathers even though they didn't want to be as well as to those who wish they had became fathers but that choice was taken away from them, but the simple fact of the matter is that a little self control and or prevention would have kept them from being in that position in the first place.

[Kathianne]

From what little I know of DMP I would concur. Unfortunately , most in this country are not as honorable and yes I believe that when it comes to children the state should absolutely intervene when a parent isn't meeting their obligations. Obviously you can't force them to be good parents, but you can force them to financially support their children.

And I am QUITE sympathetic to those who are fathers even though they didn't want to be as well as to those who wish they had became fathers but that choice was taken away from them, but the simple fact of the matter is that a little self control and or prevention would have kept them from being in that position in the first place.

In reality the courts don't imprison anyone who makes some token effort to pay the support. What they can do though is keep those that don't 'feel like paying' from getting ahead themselves by garnishing their wages. Some like J.P. think, 'fine, I won't work.' He took off on his 'adventures' and doesn't regret them at all. Wonder how that worked out for his kids? Indeed he's now on disability or was the last time I encountered him. Considering his posting schedule, likely still is.

[darin]

The problems I have with the current CS laws is this: They want to throw money at custodial parents - if that parent is female - without regard to the oppressive nature of the paying parent, AND without regard to the custodial parent NOT SPENDING the money on/towards the kids' benefit .

If my wife and I divorce, my support to her and the kids will not be defined by how much money the state extorts from me. I'll support her as best I can because I love her. The problem will happen when the state mandates I give her $2000/month for "child support" and her not having to account for a single dime.