|
Post by Awitness on Jul 24, 2011 0:00:09 GMT -5
Oh wow, here's more! The real version of : [But the thing that truly got me onto their hit-list was that I told one of the baby-mommas that she needs to quit wasting her money and respect the decisions of her baby's father.
By God that was it - telling them that the Child Support money is not to be wasted was too much in itself, but telling them to respect the father went beyond their limits.]
was...
She said: {Last night I mentioned the fact that my son would like to take community swimming lessons and that it would be $75. Since I'm paying for everything a little help with something like that would be nice. He said "why don't you take him to swim in the neighbour's pool?" Same thing if any other issue pops up where a little help is needed. He usually tells me to ask one of my family members for money since "they have it". I don't of course, but I'll never understand this mentality. Never a cent from him for his own kids yet he is able to spend on gambling and alcohol. It's so unnerving.}
And you replied: [The reason for it is because he as the father is making parental decisions and you need to respect his parental position.
If you two were married then he would be saying the same thing.
There is nothing wrong in the father suggesting the use of a neighbor's pool instead of $75 lessons.
And if you are tight on your money budget then perhaps indeed - his plan is better than yours?]
There's more if you wish to continue. You apparently have a very selective and self serving memory.
The no link posting thing? That was mentioned because some of the SFV posters had googled your name and found a wealth of info that was extremely unflattering of you. One, a new member, thought it would be improper to post links to things that were so ...well, they should have been embarassing for you, though I imagine you would have simply tried to justify them in some twisted way. Anyway, they weren't prevented from posting links to the endless negative publicity you have earned yourself, they just tastefully chose to decline to do so.
We really tried to reach some kind of agree to disagree position with you, but you kept pushing the opinion that if the custodial parent (usually a woman) asked for anything from the non-custodial parent (therefore a man) then she was being completely unfair and disrespectful of him.
So yeah, eventually we got fed up with you and someone tore you a new one and - after warning you nicely several times - Mom eventually booted you out on it.
As for why Mom moved you to a members only area, it was probably because alot of people view SFV as guests, seeking help, and our forum was not the place for you to push your political agenda. SUPPORT for single parents, remember? Not "vote for JP".
The thread that was moved was pure political agenda. It was really very nice of her to allow you to have a thread about it at all! But then you had to go too far.....
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jul 25, 2011 9:14:27 GMT -5
We really tried to reach some kind of agree to disagree position with you, but you kept pushing the opinion that if the custodial parent (usually a woman) asked for anything from the non-custodial parent (therefore a man) then she was being completely unfair and disrespectful of him. The thing is that the custodial parents whether single or remarried, are living on the stolen Child Support loot from the other parent, and standing behind the unjust laws while those laws mistreat the other parent. So the custodial parents are all doing wrong and that is why they have to demand a type of respect which they do not qualify for. People that do right never need to ask for respect, while those that do wrong can not respect them self. The custodial parents do not want to be told that what is being done is wrong when it is wrong, so me being banned and the message being ignored is what keeps them as locked in their own prison of lies. I would say the custodial parents were in a self-made prison of lies but in fact the lies are superimposed by the State laws and the Court orders which need to be stopped or else radically reformed. Many people try to disrespect me myself in this regard and it does not work on me because I am in the right.
|
|
|
Post by Awitness on Jul 25, 2011 22:31:52 GMT -5
We really tried to reach some kind of agree to disagree position with you, but you kept pushing the opinion that if the custodial parent (usually a woman) asked for anything from the non-custodial parent (therefore a man) then she was being completely unfair and disrespectful of him. The thing is that the custodial parents whether single or remarried, are living on the stolen Child Support loot from the other parent, and standing behind the unjust laws while those laws mistreat the other parent. So the custodial parents are all doing wrong and that is why they have to demand a type of respect which they do not qualify for. People that do right never need to ask for respect, while those that do wrong can not respect them self. The custodial parents do not want to be told that what is being done is wrong when it is wrong, so me being banned and the message being ignored is what keeps them as locked in their own prison of lies. I would say the custodial parents were in a self-made prison of lies but in fact the lies are superimposed by the State laws and the Court orders which need to be stopped or else radically reformed. Many people try to disrespect me myself in this regard and it does not work on me because I am in the right. And I rest my case.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jul 29, 2011 10:48:41 GMT -5
Your case was nothing in the first place. SARCASM = That single families / single parents must not be told that they are doing wrong and they are living wrong. SARCASM = Surely an Internet Forum is not to harm their sensitive feelings by telling them to face up to the truth and to reality. As in me telling the single Mom to respect the father of their children. Giving support on that forum is much like giving the Child Support, in that they do not deserve it and it supports their debaucheries. My case is made.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jul 30, 2011 9:48:35 GMT -5
I laid awake last night because of this, because I had decided some time ago not to use sarcasm any more and here I fell off the wagon big time. So I apologize and I am sorry and I do regret communicating in that vulgar form. Sarcasm is cheap and low and it feels so easy to express and to spew out. What I mean to say is that the single parents and single families are sensitive about being told they are wrong because they are in the wrong. They take the children from the other parent, then demand Child Support in which they have no right, then live off of that stolen money, and even allow the State c/s enforcement to mistreat the other parent while they pretend innocent, so this is why they are sensitive to being told the truth because facing up to the harsh reality is often times painful - and rightly so. The day will come for them as for us all when we each and all will truly meet our Maker, and God will say that He sent the messages of truth and rightfulness and each time they hid away and refused to hear it. By refusing to face up to the hard realities then the custodial parents do more then make them selves as sensitive and weak, because that makes them guilty. It is the inhuman and unjust Child Support laws which do the wrong and the laws need to be reformed, but to hide behind those laws is to share in their guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Awitness on Aug 3, 2011 22:45:34 GMT -5
Well for starters you obviously do not understand the meaning of sarcasm. What the heck was that?
2nd, what part of the fact that a staggering number of single parents are so because they have been ABANDONED by their children's other parent who THEY WERE MARRIED TO, don't you understand? There is no moral gray area in these cases. No sinister plans to breed for profit off some unsuspecting schmo who thinks birth control is being used.
No-one got stolen from anybody, the CP never went anywhere, but lots of kids and spouses got DUMPED by somebody and THAT somebody is the person you are so vehemently defending with your pipe dreams about abolishing mandatory child support.
A GOOD MORAL parent WANTS to support their child and has no qualms about paying support. Often pays more than what is ordered. A GOOD MORAL parent gets visitation with their children...whether the other parent likes it or not. It is ordered just like the cs is. Children cannot be stolen from a GOOD MORAL parent. It's hard as heck to even keep to even keep them out of the hands of a truely BAD parent, even if that parent doesn't pay the ordered support. For God's sake REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS are allowed visitation with their kids in some cases. You have to do something pretty darn bad for anyone to be able to bar you from seeing your kids.
What did you do, JP, that enabled your ex-wife to successsfully keep you away from your children? It wasn't just the failure to pay support. Courts don't deny visitation for that.
You are a broken record JP. You get just a sliver of the way into the whole picture of the single parent issue and then you get stuck and just keep skipping back over that incredibly narrow little portion of the song.
Its a shame really, a waste. Stubborness and dedication to a cause like you have is an awesome asset....if you make sense and are not so completely insane with personal bitterness that it makes you blind to reality.
Sadly, like the broken record, you keep skipping back and repeating after only the first 3 letters in your asset potential.
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Aug 4, 2011 10:20:57 GMT -5
What did you do, JP, that enabled your ex-wife to successsfully keep you away from your children? It wasn't just the failure to pay support. Courts don't deny visitation for that. Let me help with that question. He hates it when I "speak for him", but there is so much history in his postings all over the internet that I compiled everything I could find on him when he was running for Governor last year. Some of the sources are not available as some have deleted his entire threads (The Baltimore Sun) and some have deleted entire forums. But I have copies of everything and can prove he said them. He only paid some of his child support. He got off the hook from paying the $27,000 he owed (TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) with the help of his mother. As he stated in 2005: “:roll: After years of paying child support and not paying some times, and my son turned 18, then I was still behind by some $27,000. arrears of c/s and my mother asked the so-called custodial to forgive the debt. Then the custodial went to the c/s enforcement office and closed my child support case. There was no public assistance. :arrow:” My ego would never had asked for the case to be closed but mother did it just fine. standyourground.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=c6eccd39390942d0d5a46d836ed2fbfe&topic=6006.msg66577#msg66577As to why someone would leave their child, this is his claimed reason: “Once I wanted to take my young 4 year old son to a movie and his Mom said "no", and so I knew my role and my power as the father and Dad was gone and I never asked such a thing ever again. And that meant that I could no longer visit or see my son. It is because a man is not a "friend" to our children, we are not twice a month visitors for our children, we are either Dad and father or else we take nothing and discard the child(ren) to the mother and be done with it.” www.cyberrecovery.net/forums/showpost.php?p=119961&postcount=2“When I left my wife then I felt I had to leave town too because otherwise I would go mad or nuts and kill somebody or everybody. The breakup did create a type of insanity for me and it continued for many many years and those feelings have never really gone away.” www.dailystrength.org/c/Codependency/forum/4392702-might-going-nuts“Booky” is the alias JP Cusick used when he was publicizing a book he authored “When Cusick divorced his wife at age 25, after six years of marriage, he said despair and confusion pushed him to leave St. Mary's County for the first time in his life. He bounced from job to job in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Illinois and New York. With no job prospects, he missed making child support payments for several years. He said he filed several petitions to delay his payments, but "corrupt" judges wouldn't accept his arguments, even after his wife died of cancer and he was required to pay her second husband.” www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302821.html?nav=emailpageSo before the state got involved, before he got separated or divorced, before he stopped seeing his son because his wife wouldn't let him take his son to the movies, he and his first wife were, by his definition, parenting. He then left the household. He separated himself from his wife. At that point, there was no involvement of the state, no legal separation, no legal divorce. So by his own definition, he was the one who broke the bond not only of marriage, but also the act of parenting. The state was not involved. The state did not meddle in his marriage or parenting. The state did not get involved until it was asked to by him or his wife. Up until the point that the state was involved, it was a religious matter, started by the act of his separating from his wife. Also, according to his writings, marriage is a religious institution and so he broke the bonds of religious marriage before the state got involved and HE broke your vows to his wife and to his God. There is nothing he can say to defend this because I am using his logic and his definitions. His own case disproves what he professes. If there is proof that what he professes can sometimes be wrong, then what he say is NOT true OR accurate. He seeks to define the truth of this issue by denying the FACTS.
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Aug 4, 2011 10:31:00 GMT -5
Also, according to his writings, marriage is a religious institution and so he broke the bonds of religious marriage before the state got involved and HE broke your vows to his wife and to his God. It seems he does not allow editing of posts. Correction: ...and so he broke the bonds of religious marriage before the state got involved and HE broke his vows to his wife and to his God.
|
|
|
Post by Administration on Aug 5, 2011 8:05:58 GMT -5
It seems he does not allow editing of posts. Mr Cusick does not control the board's coding. Any registered posting can be edited by accessing the "Modify" link in the upper right of your own postings. That function is only available to registered members of Pro Boards, so other people posting without registering are not able to modify or edit their posting after it has been submitted. For unregistered visitors who post on these forums then they can click the "Preview" link first before clicking the "Post Reply" link. Registration is free with no obligation and besides gaining the ability to Edit or Modify postings a registered member can receive email notifications for new postings and for PMs and you can create your own profile. Admin.
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Aug 5, 2011 9:55:42 GMT -5
Any registered posting can be edited by accessing the "Modify" link in the upper right of your own postings. Ahh... I'm sorry. I did not see that, but now I do. Thanks for the info.
|
|