Paterson never saw it coming……

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

A long time friend of mine mentiond one divorce case that had built up to 200 motions being heard.

That is a lot of money to get revenge.

Vengeance is mione i will repay saith the LORD.

A TRSO works for violence. Restraining orders are not very complex if one party is hurt. Big money in the marrrigae shredding industries. Hollywood brings that around.
Jesus can restore marriages.
In psychology we ask "what is the presenting problem"

The problem is marriage involving non Christians.

And does a TRO or CPO provide these women with anything to eat, a house, clothes?

And a TRO doesn't stop people like this, I have a case right now with nine counts of contempt for against a husband with a TRO against him.

Only a fool would tell a woman to stay with a man that beats here and "Jesus can heal your marriage."

Hey he beat you until he killed the child in your womb why don't you just ask Jesus to heal your marriage.

Now back to your bogus claims to start with. Are you going to admit you are wrong or just keep going farther down a rabbit trail? You have no credibility.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

And does a TRO or CPO provide these women with anything to eat, a house, clothes?

And a TRO doesn't stop people like this, I have a case right now with nine counts of contempt for against a husband with a TRO against him.

Only a fool would tell a woman to stay with a man that beats here and "Jesus can heal your marriage."

Hey he beat you until he killed the child in your womb why don't you just ask Jesus to heal your marriage.

Now back to your bogus claims to start with. Are you going to admit you are wrong or just keep going farther down a rabbit trail? You have no credibility.

Have you fixed the man?

Divorce court doesn't fix people. Doesn't fix marriages.

The more strife there is, the more they make filing motions. Strife pays off.

I didn't say the woman should stay with him. You seem to think there is only one option. They can live together,
They can physically remain appart. They can remain appart and divorce. which benefits you? Does she show him respect?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

Have you fixed the man?

Divorce court doesn't fix people. Doesn't fix marriages.

The more strife there is, the more they make filing motions. Strife pays off.

I didn't say the woman should stay with him. You seem to think there is only one option. They can live together,
They can physically remain appart. They can remain appart and divorce. which benefits you? Does she show him respect?

You don't have a clue what your talking about. Does she show him respect? You have a serious problem, there is NEVER an excuse for hitting a woman, NEVER.

Live with him. Do you hear yourself he beat her until she miscarried, kicking her in the back while she lay on the floor and you ask did she show him respect.

I bet you would ask the rape victim how she was dressed to, probably think she was asking for it.

BTW - I understand you hate lawyers, and I am calling Bull on your 200 motions, but you don't have a clue what your talking about.


AND YOU STILL HAVE YET TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CRIMINAL BREECH OF CONTRACT. which is what you were called on when you starting making up lies about attorneys.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Obama sliced pay for companies he boosted. We have no idea what gives him the authority

C'mon coadie, you said so yourself - he "boosted the companies." That gives him the authority.

Originally Posted by coadie

Gov Patterson in New York just got a billion less tax revenue because of this. When it is over, it will cost the state several billion more. Unintended consequences? No. It is intentional blindness to consequences. Remember executives have contracts for key people. Obama breaks these contracts by royal edict.

Dude, you never cease to amaze me. You obviously understand the complexities of supply-side - and that's great! But why can't you understand the simple... well, never mind. Different thread.

Originally Posted by coadie

Actually with Lewis from BAC, they forced him to buy Merril and this month asked him to refund his pay for this year. In other words, he doesn't get minimum wage. Obama orders criminal breech of contracts.

ah... it would be a "civil" breech of contract. Contracts themselves are not part of the criminal code but part of the civil code. There could still be hefty penalties... unless of course one side of the complaint had also appointed their our comrades to the bench.

And your clever pun... "Paterson (the blind handicapable Gov.) never saw it coming..."

You can be good... even pretty good... but Dude!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

Obama's college thesis
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledee...as-his-doubts/

An important update about the "hoax surrounding Obama's thesis."

(Update: Please read The Obama “thesis” hoax.) From Michelle Malkin at Pajamas Media.

[Walks_in_islam]

Child support (non-payment) has been appearing in more and more criminal codes (example RS 14.75 http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/146/78661.html)

At one time I believe one party had to file suit against the other for contempt. Now, the DA handles the cases as a criminal matter. ouchie for the non-payor and kudos for adding "unable to pay" as valid defense. Many are simply unable for circumstances beyond their control and county jails are better suited for purposes other than debtors prisons.

Similar laws have been are are being passed in other states. These are my reference points.

NOW: From the tone of someone's post I suspect someone got nailed but hard in family court. LOL........been there, took my licks there, and moved on. Someone appears to be holding a grudge though.......hahahahaha

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ok some lessons for you. First, not paying contractually agreed upon child support is NOT a criminal offense. If a couple agree on child support the other party doesn't pay it in a contract, that is without a court order, the only thing the other party can do is go to court to enforce the contract. At this time the court ORDERS child support. If some one doesn't pay child support then they are in contempt and speaking of of court. Contempt can get you jail time but that had nothing to do with a contract it has to do with disobeying a court order.

Again I tell you there is no such thing as a criminal breach of contract.

BTW, I have plenty of law books, and you should stick to what you know. What is that anyway?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

C'mon coadie, you said so yourself - he "boosted the companies." That gives him the authority.
Dude, you never cease to amaze me. You obviously understand the complexities of supply-side - and that's great! But why can't you understand the simple... well, never mind. Different thread.

ah... it would be a "civil" breech of contract. Contracts themselves are not part of the criminal code but part of the civil code. There could still be hefty penalties... unless of course one side of the complaint had also appointed their our comrades to the bench.

And your clever pun... "Paterson (the blind handicapable Gov.) never saw it coming..."

You can be good... even pretty good... but Dude!

You are dishonest again. corporations are required to change authorities in the board meetings

"boosting" a company is not part of corporate law. My first 3 incorporations were done by a lawyer I hired from wallstreet in the 70's As an employee for me he was also on the board and a director. Gotta do it legally or get in trouble from stakeholder litigation. When he left my company he was nominated to be the ceo of a 150 million dollar company.

Just some truth. Board meetings and general shareholder meetings are called by giving legal notice. That of course wasn't done.

Then a meeting is conducted and notes are entered in the required record. Obama and his wife are ex licensed lawyers and claim to have been on boards. They should know that.

Stick with readings of fossils.

"Boosting companies" is how Chavez operates.

In fact if people want to be legal, granting TARP funding some "preferred Stock" status dilutes other shares. Gotta file disclosure documents with all shareholders of record.

Unless you can shiow us where Obama even became by vote of shareholders or board members a borad member, with certain authorities, your argument is dishonest again. This opens up the company for class action shareholder litigation.