HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:51:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, Wa

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> In article <1992Aug10.212306.10426@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.
> >The Management writes
> >> I have seen him get some
> >> fathers off the hook completely when the state wanted them
> >> screwed and so did their wives/girlfriends.
> >
> >    You should stop taking acid.
> 
> 	I still want to know how an individual like Bob K. finds
> 	himself in the courtroom all the time when he's supposed to
> 	be out at his job working for child support money.
> 

Ok Alan. Here's some real live info for your next fugue.

I'm a Guardian ad Litem. The court appoints me to represent the interests
of the child AGAINST CPS and the other agencies which have intervened. Yes,
that's right. I'm the heinous bastard who actually gets those kids back to
dad and/or mom when the state gets overzealous.

How did I do it? Why, I volunteered my time, Alan. Then I took law classes
for three years, took specialized training in developmental psychology, and
took the training for the Guardian Program. It was easy. I just worked and
studied and worked. Of course, that requires a person to comprehend a real
committment to their beliefs --so if you don't get it, we'll understand.

> 	I'd also like to know how either the "defendants" or the
> 	court wind up accepting his "interferance".  In other words
> 	how does he get into all these people's business.

You accused the last one of being on acid.  Why don't you ask the man
who was recently accused of abuse, had his custody thwarted, and went to
court in a dependency action? A long story shortened, father and child 
are a family again. If you want more info, maybe he'll tell you. But I
wouldn't hold my breath. Yesterday, he asked me "Who is that asshole
Yasutovitch?"

> 	And finally, there's the point beaten to death here about
> 	legal advice, being/not being and attorney, and being held
> 	accountable for advice given.  Seems this net is the only
> 	place where most people's questions can't get answered
> 	FREE!

Yes, you certainly do beat it to death. You keep looking for a free 
handout. You want legal representation for nothing. Gimmee, Gimmee, 
Gimmee. Not only that, but you want these people to risk their bar
membership on the whim of a conversation. C'mon, Alan. Please. Get
back on your medication.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: a modest proposal...
Date: 18 Aug 1992 19:22:22 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

Okay netters.  Would the following be a fair and reasonable
substitute for the current setup:

o the state does not intervene in child custody and child
  support disputes

o support and custody questions are not permitted as a cause for 
  civil or criminal legal action

o the state *does* intervene when a child is neglected or
  endangered -- but does so in a way that is not influenced
  by parental opinions as to how custody and support are shared
  or should be shared

This is not intended as flame bait.

Any comments?

Steve
From: serling@visual.spk.wa.us (Brock Serling)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Sounds like a personal problem
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:19:16 GMT
Organization: Visual Market Public Access Usenet Site

In response to Mr. Brunner's distaste for BobK:

Mr Brunner,
I can only figure you to have some sort of axe to grind with Bob.
Don't know why you should. I've been reading second hand here, and
I've been reading what he has to say, and what you do. I saw as
you got pretty hot that Bob drew a line between you saying that all
the CPS places were bad ones and he said some were not so bad. You
have some sort of problem with people that don't agree with you. As
near as I can see it, you sound a lot like Bob about what you don't
like in the system. I see you guys as really different where Bob
will argue pretty hard on his point, but he doesn't do it to feel
the pleasure out of grinding on somebody. Sorry but that is the way
I see you in this you and him thing.

Don't need to see what Bob wrote to you. Don't really care. I see 
him at work here, and that is what counts. He has stood up to the
court so he's almost gone to jail because he believed in the people
he defended. The commissioner wanted him to say ok for some way a
order was worded and he wouldn't do it.

I saw him on my case. I have my girl and my boy ONLY because he was
able to get the facts to the court and show them I was a good parent.
In the posts I read here, I saw you talking about how you defended
you, but I didn't see you defending anyone else. You made me pretty
mad before and I would have told you but I didn't have an account
to post at. Now I do and now I am telling you.

Sometimes I think that Bob is opinionated. But I am glad that he is.
He won't take anybodys crap. When he took on my kids as their Guardian,
he wasn't so sure about me. My wife had left with a man and I had the
kids. I got in trouble at a party and the police took my kids to CPS.
Bob spent his own money to go all over to get people to write statments
about me and brought people into the hearings. He wouldn't let the
court keep the kids in the shelter care and him and his lawyer got me
my kids back. So you can keep your mail and your poison pen right in
your desk. The people I talked to and there was lots of them said that
this guy did more for dads here than anybody they ever saw. They said
I was lucky I got him. I think I am lucky too.

So if you have something against him because you don't like what he
said well OK. But quit slamming him. If you cared about dads and how
we get treated you would be trying to work with him.

Flame off like they say.
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Paternity suit vindication?
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:14:58 GMT
Reply-To: ssmith@xocolatl.com
Organization: Amethyst Systems, Fremont, CA

Oops...that was intended to be email for my kids' father, not wasted
bandwidth for the group.  He goes back and forth between holding
reasonable opinions on our situation and holding the opinion that I
forced babies on him.  He's his more peevish self these days, so I
thought I'd pass along the opportunity for him to prove that I am the
awful person who could (single-handedly) do this to him.


ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:

> If you really feel that this is what happened to you, then I say go
> for it.  Make it fly, if you can.
> 
> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
> 
> > This is an opportunity for one lucky guy to be publicly vindicated.
> > 
> > A *MAJOR TV NETWORK* wants to produce a show about MEN'S RIGHTS. In particu
> > 
> > HAVE. The show's bread and butter is exposing outrageous situations, so thi

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: You will not change my beliefs
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:35:02 GMT


I started a new subject because I did not wish to delete all the stuff
that was written in a reply to me from children as appendages.

In reply to what whoever it was said about abortion, you don't seem to
understand that some women believe the "blob" growing inside of them is a
human and it is alive. You cannot ask someone to commit murder. Murder is
not equal to financial rape, it is not equal to anything you get by
leaving your child. I will agree with the woman who said as far as she is
concerned if she chooses to keep a child the man has nothing to do with it
and should not be held accountable, but that holds true only if the woman
is not forced to go on welfare because of it. If she's doing just fine,
who needs his money anyway? I wouldn't and I won't take it when I am on my
feet.

However, nothing is an absolute. You can't just say if a woman has a baby
it's hers and her responsibility, because then that would be the case in
all situations, and I'm positive that would make many a man angry. It was
meant to be a joint endeavor, it's a joint endeavor to make a baby in most
cases, and the product of the endeavor is also a joint responsibility.
Call me stupid, but I believe it. The govt will not allow a woman to
forcibly kick the man out of the scene, the govt will not allow a man to
forcibly kick the woman out of the scene, and the govt SHOULD NOT allow
either the man or the woman kick the child out of the scene. After all,
the child is probably the only innocent victim involved. I would love to
see your face if it was discovered that abortion really was murder
(getting a bit religious here) You know nothing for sure, and you are
really having a lot of faith in your knowledge to claim abortion is ok.
The wisdom I would like to share with you is this: If it makes you feel
guilty and you are a person with a conscience, it's WRONG. If your
reasons are selfish ones, ie I'm too young, my life has only begun, I
don't want to postpone any plans I've already made, or even he raped me
so why should I have to go through this, it is WRONG. I know a woman who
was raped by a stranger who took the baby to term, kept the baby, raised
the baby, and has loved every moment of it.

Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: KILL files
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.002334.13523@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>                                                                     ^^^^^^^
>WHAT? This must be a forged post, I was sure I was in BobK's kill file,
>apparently not.
>
>Since I read/write from a variety of client sites, the string "Brunner"
>is one constant one can consistently kill on, unfortunatly that would
>be unfair to several other people known to use news...
>
>If you use rn, your kill file entry should read:
>
>/From: *brunner@practic\.com/h:j
>/From: *brunner@telebit\.com/h:j
>/From: *brunner@adobe\.com/h:j
>
>In fact, what this newsgroup (a.c-s) could use right now is some KILL file

	More crap?

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:07:24 GMT

To: root@visual.spk.wa.us:

Have BobK provide you with permission to receive private correspondence
he sent me and I will gladly send you the collected BobK - Brunner mail.
He may do some useful work, but there is a side to his a.c-s post/mail
which may come as a surprise.

Also, BobK isn't the only regular in a.c-s who's work extends beyond his
own personal case. Nor is he the only one "known" to his local legal
community.


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: a modest proposal...
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 12:06:10 GMT

In article <16rileINN71r@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>Okay netters.  Would the following be a fair and reasonable
>substitute for the current setup:
>
>o the state does not intervene in child custody and child
>  support disputes
>
>o support and custody questions are not permitted as a cause for 
>  civil or criminal legal action
>
>o the state *does* intervene when a child is neglected or
>  endangered -- but does so in a way that is not influenced
>  by parental opinions as to how custody and support are shared
>  or should be shared
>
>This is not intended as flame bait.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Steve

	I think it's a good idea for the Government to stay out of
	EVERYBODIES affairs.

	That is the reason that so many people are "pro choice" when
	it comes to abortion.  Most of these people are anti-abortion,
	but don't want to be told what to do.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2822 alt.dads-rights:2038
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Date: 20 Aug 1992 07:50:43 -0700
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

You know, I've been as good as gone for the past several weeks,
studying for and taking the Bar, and starting at my practice (10+
hours a day..groan), and here I am, back in a.c-s and a.d-r...
and you know?..despite the fact that several weeks have passed, you
could never tell it from the current Thread..it's as if I never left!

What a shame.


-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  David Widdicombe, Hobson Woodward, Lorna Taylor & JJ Lancey
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
          sex is a misdemeanor - the more I miss, the meaner I get.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2727 soc.men:14877 soc.women:15154
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "Congratulations" and/or "Best Wishes" (was Re: children as appendages)
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:08:39 GMT+12
 <1992Aug7.031148.14292@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Aug10.175413.18233@sni.ca>
Distribution: world
Organization: It's Home, really...

In article <1992Aug10.175413.18233@sni.ca> dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.031148.14292@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>>And Amy, congratulations on getting married. Or, as my girlfriend
>>keeps reminding me to say to women, best wishes.
>
>I've always wondered about this.  Years ago, I was told to say "best wishes"
>to women, and "congratulations" to men.  My question:  is this still correct
>etiquette?
    Isn't it "Best wishes" when you're sure they've made a _big_ mistake and
you really hope they survive, and "Congratulations" when you think they're
lucky you didn't get there first? <grin>...
--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
              she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Please allow me to clarify my views
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.190520.4867@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>Please stop ripping on me for trying to better my life and my son's life.
>Would you rather I stay on AFDC til Matt is 18? That is an alternative,
>you know. Suck on that for a while and let me know what you think I should
>do. If you would rather I just stay on AFDC for two more years, than
>please shut up and leave me be.
>
>Michelle


	You brought it up!

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: a modest proposal...
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:19:24 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <16rileINN71r@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
|> Okay netters.  Would the following be a fair and reasonable
|> substitute for the current setup:
|> 
|> o the state does not intervene in child custody and child
|>   support disputes
|> 
|> Any comments?
|> 

The problem that I see with this "modest proposal" is that it relies
on the parents to work things out between themselves as rational
adults - something that most of us aren't when it comes to our kids.
If calm, reasoned negotiating doesn't work - or isn't tried - it
would come down to force, as far as I can tell.

For instance, suppose both parents want to have primary custody
(as it's called under the current system). If neither is willing
to compromise, each will be left with the options of either:
  a. Giving up their rights/wishes
  b. Abducting the child(ren)

The current system is heavily flawed, as anybody involved in it
knows. However, I don't think that this proposal is very workable.

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Please allow me to clarify my views
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:39:26 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Aug11.122950.21561@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
|> 	is as much of a hobby as you want to think.  But life experience
|> 	shows that, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
|> 	it's probably a duck."  Having been around the block a few times

By this metric, Alan, you are probably an asshole.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: a modest proposal...
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:06:39 GMT

In article <16rileINN71r@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>Okay netters.  Would the following be a fair and reasonable
>substitute for the current setup:

Just a few comments Steve,

>o the state does not intervene in child custody and child
>  support disputes

Does the state have a role as the ultimate guardian of the wellbeing of
dependent persons (mentally handicapped, prisioners, and children)? If
so, how can the state not have an interest in determining when it must
act?

>o support and custody questions are not permitted as a cause for 
>  civil or criminal legal action

If neither civil nor criminal, what venue are support and custody questions
heard in? The former preciding judge in dependency court (juvenile) here in
Santa Clara holds the view that all custody action belong in juvenile, where
different standards of proof apply, and the court has some constitutionally
tested powers (e.g., to order a parent to therapy), which are absent in
California family courts. I don't share his views as to either the necessity,
nor desirability of moving custody proceedings to dependency courts. I mention
his views because the next paragraph and his published pieces are not too
disimilar.

>o the state *does* intervene when a child is neglected or
>  endangered -- but does so in a way that is not influenced
>  by parental opinions as to how custody and support are shared
>  or should be shared
>

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2836 soc.men:15325 soc.women:15601
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: LESS THAN HALF (43%) of court ordered CS is paid in full!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:56:03 GMT

Rick Lang writes:
>                   A MORE HUMANE APPROACH TO CHILD SUPPORT
>. . .the Census Bureau says half of the mothers with a child support order 
>get full payment, and another 25 percent of mothers with a child support order 
>get partial payment. . . .
>This means that 75 percent of mothers with a support order get full or part
>payment.  And these figures are the result of self-reporting by mothers, who,
>if they receive welfare, have a definite self-interest in underreporting
>"outside income" such as child support. 
>                                                             - David L. Levy
>The writer is president of the Children Rights Council.

  58% of all NCPs have court ordered Child Support (CS) obligations.
  25% of all NCPs pay CS "in full".
  11% of all NCP's pay "some" CS.

  Of the  58 "men" who owe support only 25 pay it in full while
  the other 33 don't.  25 divided by 58 is 43%.

  LESS THAN HALF (43%) of court ordered CS is paid in full!

  This is clear evidence that the NCP's don't like their slavery --
  Everyone will pay for the injustice done to the NCPs.

  If the government wants to keep the kids in a "good" lifestyle
  then THEY -- not some slave -- must pay for it THEMSELVES.

  Who are they to decree whether or not I am a parent???????
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Feminist Gerbil Owners
Keywords: I am not a gerbil, I am a FREE man!
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:39:54 GMT
Reply-To: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article MvG@cs.psu.edu, beaver@basic.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>An article entitled, "The Gerbil Mystique," by Tamar Lewin,
>appeared in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine (9 Aug 92),
>pp. 12-14.
> stuff deleted...
>

One talking fish replies:

My EX wife left me in city A with 2 kids (ages 6 and 2.5) and went to 
city B to "find herself".  She made no attempt to support the kids or
the household she left behind.  I *moved* to city B to try and reconcile,
but she then filed for Divorce. She was granted sole physical custody of 
the children (which I had had for about 4 months while she was 
disinterested in parenting) and I was given every other weekend visitation
and 28% of my *gross* pay was garnished for support. I have *never* failed 
to support my children - even before the law forced me to pay excessively
for the privilege. 

They now have moved to another state, and I see them about 4 times a year.

To answer your points:

>1. Men who pay child support or care for their children
>are as common as "talking fish."

See above.

>2. There are no feminist gerbils: gerbil males have no idea
>about their offspring, and that's simple biology.

See above.

>3. Humans are above gerbils, but biology determines women to be
>the natural caregivers; just look at playgrounds.

It has been my experience that women can choose to parent or not, and
if not - they can be crueler and nastier than any man I have heard of.

>4. Humans are above gerbils, but misogyny, not biology, 
>bars women from power.

Power is as much economy as it is heirarchy.  Women *have* power over
men - it's economic and it's institutionalized.  I can't bar my EX from
seeing the children, and I can't take a third of her income either.
I'm powerless to fight her if I care about my relationship to my 
children.  

It seems that so-called feminism only supports removal of male rights, 
not equality.

>5. Even in a nonsexist world, men will behave like male gerbils:
>(ie. ignore their children).

Sure, some do - but so do some women. Generalizations like these only
serve to de-humanize both sexes.  As numerous wars throughout history have
shown, to destroy another group of people you must first cease looking at
them *as* people. 

---
= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =
Newsgroups: alt.child-support