IRMO: Russell Kanning and CHSUP

[coffeeseven]

Here's a good place to vent your spleen about Russell. Anyone have an update?

[Kat Kanning]

What do IRMO and CHSUP mean?

[coffeeseven]

What do IRMO and CHSUP mean?

1. IRMO - In Regards To The Matter Of (Referencing court documents)
2. CHSUP (The line on a paycheck deducting child support)

I'd smite myself but there's no button.

[malcolm]

Am I missing something?  What EXACTLY is Russell protesting?

That he has no duty to his children?  That his wife fleeced him in a cash-out divorce?
The answer to both of those was to not sign a marriage license.  But he DID sign it.

This doesn't seem to me (unless I'm missing something) to be some arbitrary (or trivial) expression of state power.  He absconded to another state in flight from a large, insoluble debt.

What measures would Russell approve of to enforce this contractual obligation?  Strong language?  Ten lashes with a wet noodle?

To clarify, I am not an apologist for the Divorce and Child Support Industry, but I stay free by boycotting marriage.  Most folks would like to have alternatives to the State, but when you engage the state, what do you think will happen.  Marriage is a corporation, a government legal abstraction.  Its dissolution is governed by the State.

So what, EXACTLY, is Russell protesting?  When will he comply, thereby letting himself out of the klink?

[KBCraig]

To clarify, I am not an apologist for the Divorce and Child Support Industry, but I stay free by boycotting marriage.

Marriage has no bearing on child support. Whether parenthood is established by DNA or affinity or judicial edict, as soon as a judge declares someone a parent, the legal obligation for support is attached.

I'm not defending that system, but it is the current state of things. Marriage doesn't define parenthood (except in those states where children born during marriage are legally presumed to the children of both spouses).

[malcolm]

Marriage has no bearing on child support. Whether parenthood is established by DNA or affinity or judicial edict, as soon as a judge declares someone a parent, the legal obligation for support is attached.

I'm not defending that system, but it is the current state of things. Marriage doesn't define parenthood (except in those states where children born during marriage are legally presumed to the children of both spouses).

Effective birth control, along with prompt paternity testing can effectively avoid that entanglement.  Additionally, courts do not like being lied to. If a woman claims that a certain man is the father, while a prompt DNA test says otherwise, the petitioner will often be chastised by the court, along with releasing the man.  Do not taunt Happy Fun Court.

Even if child support is levied, it has a fixed duration, and may be afforded if the man is unmarried.  A man in the wreckage of the Financial Hydrogen Bomb That Is Property Division is not often in a financial position to afford anything, let alone Mommy Support.

Mommy support (if you can't avoid it) can be dealt with.  Asset division usually cannot.

And for the gods' sale USE YOUR OWN CONDOMS.

[kola]

dna tests are not always accurate nor are the primitive lie detector tests that were the gold standard of yesteryears.

[Tom Sawyer]

Am I missing something?  What EXACTLY is Russell protesting?
So what, EXACTLY, is Russell protesting?  When will he comply, thereby letting himself out of the klink?

Write him a letter and ask him yourself.

[Kat Kanning]

He wasn't protesting anything.  None of this belonged under 'civil disobedience'.  Neither he nor I put it there.

[malcolm]

dna tests are not always accurate nor are the primitive lie detector tests that were the gold standard of yesteryears.

99.999% is good enough for me.

[kola]

dna tests are not always accurate nor are the primitive lie detector tests that were the gold standard of yesteryears.

99.999% is good enough for me.

any source to back that claim?

and not to mention the fact that cops and their goons are corrupt and they are in position to infect the evidence(intentionally or unintentionally) or purposely plant it.
sorry man, dna, bloodwork and lie detectors are all the same, open to errors and corruption.

kola

[coffeeseven]

He wasn't protesting anything.  None of this belonged under 'civil disobedience'.  Neither he nor I put it there.

That was my fault. Can the entire thread be moved please.

[malcolm]

dna tests are not always accurate nor are the primitive lie detector tests that were the gold standard of yesteryears.

99.999% is good enough for me.

any source to back that claim?

and not to mention the fact that cops and their goons are corrupt and they are in position to infect the evidence(intentionally or unintentionally) or purposely plant it.
sorry man, dna, bloodwork and lie detectors are all the same, open to errors and corruption.
kola

http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/dna_accuracy.html
http://genelex.com/paternitytesting/paternitygood.html
http://craigmedical.com/DNA_Paternity_Testing.htm
http://www.emaxhealth.com/84/1330.html
http://www.idna-systems.com/DNA%20test%20equality.htm

Most of the inaccuracy in paternity testing (one in ten-thousand or so) is in false negatives (man is the father but the test says he's not).  Polygraph tests are an art, not a science.

I don't know how it's done in NH, but here in AZ, the state directly performs only criminal-related DNA tests.  Civil tests (paternity) are outsourced to any of a number of private firms.  Filing a petition to request a specific firm is free, and always accepted (provided, of course that it's a real, legitimate company).

With all the bad press the State has had recently in DNA testing freeing men who were falsely convicted of rape, the courts DO NOT WANT bad tests to enslave a free man.  It would curtail their perceived legitimacy.

Rejoice, man.  This is one area of the modern world that is on your side.

[RussellsEx]

Am I missing something?  What EXACTLY is Russell protesting?

That he has no duty to his children?  That his wife fleeced him in a cash-out divorce?
The answer to both of those was to not sign a marriage license.  But he DID sign it.

This doesn't seem to me (unless I'm missing something) to be some arbitrary (or trivial) expression of state power.  He absconded to another state in flight from a large, insoluble debt.

What measures would Russell approve of to enforce this contractual obligation?  Strong language?  Ten lashes with a wet noodle?

To clarify, I am not an apologist for the Divorce and Child Support Industry, but I stay free by boycotting marriage.  Most folks would like to have alternatives to the State, but when you engage the state, what do you think will happen.  Marriage is a corporation, a government legal abstraction.  Its dissolution is governed by the State.

So what, EXACTLY, is Russell protesting?  When will he comply, thereby letting himself out of the klink?

Russell is just protesting...everything.

[malcolm]

Russell is just protesting...everything.

When children do protest without reason, adults call it a tantrum.  Are you suggesting Russell is throwing a tantrum?