HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: Class action suit
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.193735.22522@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>[...]
>	Trouble is, these people lose sight of an issue and
>	get consumed by flames.

   Fuck my WHAT?  I think a quick glance at some old news articles
will reveal who dove into flames first.  People who live in glass
houses, Alan.

>
>	I'll re-post my earlier post about class action.

   I think I already addressed this sufficiently.  Funny, though, how
articles saying "you can't do that" don't even exist, but articles
that look contradictory (but, in fact, aren't) you feel the need to
post over and over.  Are you one of those guys who can hear the word
"yes" but not "no"?

   I'll say it again, just for fun.  You can't do that, Alan.  You
can't sue the government unless it lets you.  It's called soverign
immunity.  And you won't be able to sue any large groups, for the
reasons I've stated elsewhere.

   Who did you intend to sue, anyway?  Or did you even think that far?

   Not that it really matters.  Even if it were the easiest thing in
the world, you still have no right demanding that someone else do it.

			-Gary

ObDemand: Alan, go see a shrink about your repressed anger.
-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
From: lbrown@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Latonya Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Please tell me/part 2
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:15:38 GMT
Expires: 31 Aug 92 04:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: lbrown@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Latonya Brown)
Followup-To: Please Tell Me
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


Hi it's me again.  I have another question to my story.  My daughters
father told me that if I take him to court that he'll let them lock
him up (because he has stated that he won't pay) and come after me when
he gets out.  How and/or can I get a restraining order.  This man already
has 2 Restraining orders, they are 3 years from his son and his son's
Mother. (PG County area)  He tookxx the door to his son's grandmothers
off, just ripped it off.

As of yet I have not filed, I do have the paper work though.  I don't
know if it's worth the frustration or the harrasment that may come along
with it.



TONYA BROWN
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:33:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.143152.27270@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu
(Alan Yasutovich) writes:

>	But she's all we've got!  I'd let an EMT help me if it
>	would save my life.

Huh?  There are lots of lawyers here, and even more not on the net.
Why do you feel nobody else can help?

>	Well then you're wasting your time.  I think faster than I
>	type, and I type so fast and so much, it's not worth
>	reviewing.

Well, if you don't have the time to read your postings, I guess I'll
bow to your expert opinion on their value.

>	Fuck you!  I know how to read.

Now learn how to proofread.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2248 alt.dads-rights:1594
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:32:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

> In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
> 
> >We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
> >are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
> .......................................................
> >Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.
> 
> Please wait till the choice for women will be in a real risk
> and then preach that to soc.women.  I wonder how all these
> "for equality" feminists will feel when they will be treated
> just like men, and when what they have preached at men for the
> last twenty years will be preached at women...
> 
> (I bet that they will shout "sexism!")

I fail to see this as a sexism issue. The element of risk is the same
for both genders. They have, *in the base issue*, the same choice as
men do. Speaking in terms of the intercourse, they have the option of
contraception or not, just as a man does. If women elect to forego
contraception, they run the risk of pregnancy and the requirement to
support a child from infancy to adulthood. Yes, some can abort. But
then, some cannot.

Paul isn't speaking in terms of the post facto issues of abortion and
child-support though. He's speaking to the issue of initial choice,
and correctly points out that men and women are on equal ground when
it comes to risks of intercourse without protection.

If a man is adamant that he doesn't want a child, or the responsibility
for one, then he should practice safe sex. Condoms, spermicidal gels,
and even vasectomy are available to men. The level of protection goes
up with the addition of each of the available methodologies. The same
is true for women. They can use the pill, a diaphragm, spermacidal foam,
and even a tubal ligation.

It seems to me that a man who enjoys intercourse with a woman, and feels
no obligation to use contraceptive measures, is the sexist one. He's
even more so when he blames the woman for a pregnancy he didn't want
and could have taken steps to prevent.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:24:11 GMT

In article <NTRmoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>> In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
>> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>> 
>> >We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>> >are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
>> .......................................................
>> >Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.
>> 
>> Please wait till the choice for women will be in a real risk
>> and then preach that to soc.women.  I wonder how all these
>> "for equality" feminists will feel when they will be treated
>> just like men, and when what they have preached at men for the
>> last twenty years will be preached at women...
>> 
>> (I bet that they will shout "sexism!")
>
>I fail to see this as a sexism issue. The element of risk is the same
>for both genders. They have, *in the base issue*, the same choice as
>men do. 

What is the "base issue", Bob? I see the "base issue" as people living
up to their responsibilities IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR ACTIONS OR INACTION
AS VIEWED FROM ESTABLISHED COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES. 

What do _you_ see as the "base issue"?

>Speaking in terms of the intercourse, they have the option of
>contraception or not, just as a man does. If women elect to forego
>contraception, they run the risk of pregnancy and the requirement to
>support a child from infancy to adulthood. Yes, some can abort. But
>then, some cannot.

Cannot, or don't wish to? I would argue that "cannot" only applies to a
small fraction of cases -- e.g. where there are serious risks to the 
woman's life or health. The rest are voluntary.

And don't bother with the religious tack, either -- religion is CHOSEN,
not intrinsic, and there's the slight matter of separation between church and
state to consider. Besides, most of the religions and denominations which
oppose abortion also oppose pre- or extra-marital sex. Given that context, 
invoking religion after-the-fact begins to sound a little, er, convenient...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: EX TO MOVE OUT OF STATE
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

  Bruce : 45 miles in 1 thing, 1400 miles is something else. YU\ou can
re-apply for custody, either temporary or permanent but see local
counsel and be quick about it.
                                                                                        
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: kaufmanj@ucs.orst.edu (John Kaufman)
Subject: Class action suit
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:02:03 GMT

I guess maybe I don't quite understand what the debate is all about over the
idea whether a class action suit could be invoked. I was under the assumption
that the suit would be brought against the Federal government, not custodial
parents. Isn't there enough evidence in the federal statutes to show that many
of the new legislative mandates are unconstitutional and discriminatory?

Wasn't there a recent Supreme Court ruling AGAINST laws created by the 
government that supercede individual's rights, even if those laws were 
supposed to 'protect' us from ourselves? Forgive my atrocious memory, wasn't
that a judgment recently made in Pennsylvania? Seems to me there is enough
here to at least begin a dialogue on how to get started and organized, and how
to come up with the resources to pull it off. Even if it didn't succeed, the
publicity would at least open some eyes.

It also seems apparent that if the energy used in this newsgroup to stomp all
over each other was channelled into a more productive vein, we MIGHT get 
something accomplished. I for one would certainly like to see some changes

made to the system, and that's going to take more than complaining.

jk


Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Children's Rights groups
From: cse0947@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:56:52 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Need information on children's rights groups (i.e. Children's Defense Fund )
that might assist in a situation where Children's Services has refused 
intervention.

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2147 alt.dads-rights:1496 alt.parents-teens:1046 misc.kids:19361 soc.men:13473 soc.women:13849
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:00:44 GMT
Reply-To: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


|> In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
|>  > As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
|>  > we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
|>  > just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
|>  > 
|>  > Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
|>  > could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
|>  > and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
|>  > 13, or 14!

When I read Anne's intentionally distorting post, I thought about 
my friend whose father raped her repeatedly throughout her childhood. 
Sure, it's always better to keep the parents in charge. They know what's 
best for their child! You can't trust a 12-year old to make a decision 
for herself.

I'm not campaigning for the Clintons, but a post like Anne's makes me 
think that I should be. How many out there consider misc.kids an appropriate forum for misleading statements attacking a political candidate? I don't!

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu

(p.s. My friend *tried* to get help from child protective services, but 
they didn't believe her. Times have changed, though. Fortunately years 
of therapy, at great expense and suffering, have made it possible for 
her to lead a happy life.)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: CHILDREN'S RIGHTS GROUPS
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:55:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Read up on the CHild Avuse Prevention Act of 1985 and the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 and trhe companion COde of Fed
Regs which pay for all this by placing a bounty of $25,000 per child
taken per year. Feds pay the states if the states take the kids, it pays
for Law Guardians, psychi\ologists etc.
                                                               
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 13:41:44 GMT

In article <1682AC290.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard) writes:
>  2)  Is this to be pro bono?  What will she buy groceries with while she
>      handles this?  Contemplate going to the store and asking for things
>      "pro bono."  If not, who's to pay the tens of thousands (perhaps
>      hundreds of thousands) of dollars needed to make new law?  You?
>      Put your money where your mouth is, Alan.
> 
>**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616

	People who do these things obtain funding/funds from groups,
	organizations, etc..  Are the people who are running for
	President paying for it themselves?  Of course not.

	There is an exact opposite side to this thing than you are
	stating.  And it's that hard work which *could* make someone
	a big name.  Yes, all the politician eat 3 squares while
	spending other people's money.  *I* don't have the money.

	But if an organized movement were begun by someone who "knows
	the ropes", support would gather.

-- 
	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: mmord@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: NCP Mortgages/Step Parent issues
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:46:20 GMT

I am a NCP of my two daughters (8 & 5) that I love very much.  
I suppose my divorce decree is fairly mainstream and uncontroversial
compared to many that I read about hear. 

I hope to generate some discussion about a few items:

1. Mortgages - When I apply for a mortgage as a NCP I get to put
down my child support payment as a debt.  Yet, as a married husband
I wouldn't have included any analogous type of cost.  Even though I
would have told the bank the number of my dependants, all the same
qualification ratios would have applied in the same manner as they
do to me as a NCP. Its as though the bank overlooks the cost of 
raising children if you are married. Any thoughts as to why this is?

2. Step Parenting - I think there are not many other types of
relationships that are more challenging to be productive and
successful.  Any insights on this matter? Are there any particularly
good books about this? Any good success/horror stories out there?
My SO has never been married and I think she gets uncomfortable
when I have my daughters...sorta becomes different somehow...more
irritable, etc. Any thoughts on this?

3. If my ex decides to move significantly far away does that at all
improve my chances of winning custody if I attempted it? BTW, in Utah
would I have to prove my ex "unfit" or would I be attempting to prove
me "more fit" or what?

4. Does anyone know how Utah treats a NCP's spouse's income when
calculating child support?

Thanks,
Bret Webster
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2164 alt.dads-rights:1509 alt.parents-teens:1052 misc.kids:19392
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:15:52 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?

FIRST, I couldn't post to all groups at once (don't know why not).
Broken up into alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,
misc.kids  AND  soc.women,soc.men.  So if you're gonna followup, you
may as well add either set to the list, if you can, so that the others
get to see your response.

In article <1992Jul21.182938.7985@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Terrance Heath) says:
>
>          For example, a child who is sexually or otherwise abused
>might exercise her right to divorce her parents. At least this way the
>child has a say in her own life.

So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
own life.

-Jennifer

PS.  Child(ren) means after birth.  No abortion.

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2179 alt.dads-rights:1525 alt.parents-teens:1062 misc.kids:19441
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:42:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <92203.191552JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>>
>>          For example, a child who is sexually or otherwise abused
>>might exercise her right to divorce her parents. At least this way the
>>child has a say in her own life.
>
>So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
>children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
>own life.
>
>-Jennifer

Adults had "their say" in their life when they made the conscious
decision to have children. However their is a big difference between 
making decisions and being responsible for the outcome of the
decisions we make.

Adults *choose* to have children.Children do not have a choice.

I cannot understand why anyone would suggest that adults should not be
responsible for the outcome of their actions. I think it is appalling
that there are adult humans out there who think they are so special
that someone else should take responsibility for their behavior! 

There is no big mommy in the sky to fix our lives when we make
decisions that have outcomes we don't like. There is no one to 
appear magically and fix the children who suffer because their parents
decided that they made a mistake.


Oh, and thanks Jennifer, for letting us know that you are anti-choice,
but you would let the parents off the hook once they gave birth to
unwanted children!! This is the most irresponsible position I have
ever heard on this topic.



>
>PS.  Child(ren) means after birth.  No abortion.
>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: irvine@ntmtv.UUCP (Chuck Irvine)
Subject: Re: NCP Mortgages/Step Parent issues
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:52:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.114620.215@doc.bmd.trw.com>, mmord@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> I am a NCP of my two daughters (8 & 5) that I love very much.  
|> I suppose my divorce decree is fairly mainstream and uncontroversial
|> compared to many that I read about hear. 
|> 
|> I hope to generate some discussion about a few items:
|> 
|> 1. Mortgages - When I apply for a mortgage as a NCP I get to put
|> down my child support payment as a debt.  Yet, as a married husband
|> I wouldn't have included any analogous type of cost.  Even though I
|> would have told the bank the number of my dependants, all the same
|> qualification ratios would have applied in the same manner as they
|> do to me as a NCP. Its as though the bank overlooks the cost of 
|> raising children if you are married. Any thoughts as to why this is?
|> 
|> 2. Step Parenting - I think there are not many other types of
|> relationships that are more challenging to be productive and
|> successful.  Any insights on this matter? Are there any particularly
|> good books about this? Any good success/horror stories out there?
|> My SO has never been married and I think she gets uncomfortable
|> when I have my daughters...sorta becomes different somehow...more
|> irritable, etc. Any thoughts on this?
|> 
|> 3. If my ex decides to move significantly far away does that at all
|> improve my chances of winning custody if I attempted it? BTW, in Utah
|> would I have to prove my ex "unfit" or would I be attempting to prove
|> me "more fit" or what?

My wife and I are in the midst of a divorce, and this issue has come up for me.
My wife has been the primary care giver; she doesn't work outside the house.
This being the case, I was told that she would in all likelyhood receive 
custody of our daughter. It is her intention to move back to the midwest,
where she's from, when the divorce proceedings are complete. My question
to my lawyer was: can she do that, just move away, separating father and
daughter. The answer was "maybe not". It seems to depend on the situation
and on the court appointed person who meets with the principles and advises
the court regarding custody. It may be a moot point for me because I might
consent to let her move - I haven't totally decided 
yet. We haven't been to court yet or seen the custody advisor. 

I would appreciate hearing from others who have relevant stories or knowledge, 
or knows of the issues involved.

|> 4. Does anyone know how Utah treats a NCP's spouse's income when
|> calculating child support?
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> Bret Webster
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Anyone read Ann Landers on July 17th?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.181529.15199@exu.ericsson.se> exudnw@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>Thanks for the post - we "good" dads need all the press we can get.
>
>Here's one for you.  After my divorce, my ex filed jointly with her (then)
>fiance on their income taxes.  Unknown to both my ex and myself, there was 
>a judgement out for a home improvement loan "we" had taken out years before
>on a home we had sold.  When my ex and her fiance's tax return was garnished
>for half of the amount due, they freaked.  They made threats, sought legal 
>counsel, etc. 
>
>They were aghast that the custodial parent should have to be responsible for 
>any unspecified debts from the previous marriage (this after I paid over $4k 
>for debts my ex ran up prior to the divorce).  I gladly paid the remainder of
>the loan - knowing that for once justice had been done.
>
>When I changed jobs about 2 years ago, I went to my payroll section and
>told them that I needed a garnishment set up for child-support.  They 
>gladly did this, and I thought I was set.  several weeks later I got a
>*nasty* letter from the county c-s office that informed me that I did
>no notify them *prior* to quiting my previous job and that I had better
>setup that garnishment *right now* or they'd come right over and make
>me do it.  At that time the first garnishment had allready been paid.
>
>I have *never* missed a single c-s payment, and for this I'm treated like a 
>criminal.
>
>Sorry - just venting...
>
	And we, as a "class", have no reason to complain about our
	"constitutional right" that one poster claomed we have?


-- 
	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,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids