meldon pretends he is hero of story but is really scoundrel

[Anonymous]

he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

[Gloria Fong]

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn’t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?

[Meldon]

Post by Gloria Fong

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn’t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?

Only if the payor is true.

[Dusty]

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn’t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not. It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.

Most likely, the creation of such a large amount came in the form of fees,
penalties and interest to an otherwise sizable sum created by the court for
non-child support amounts. Many times marital debt, insurance payments,
attorneys fees and other non-C$ sums are used to create such debt for the
purpose of punishing the defendant for getting uppity with the court for
such things as.. sticking to the truth; having verifiable factual evidence;
witnesses to verify their facts; able to rebut opposing counsel; exposing
lies presented as fact to the court; etc..

Most "Family Court" judges have an agenda and often times they know the
opposing attorneys very, very well. If a plaintiff is Pro-se before the
court, such tactics are commonly used to keep the Pro-se litigate from
presenting his/her evidence and showing to the world that the court is a
sham. Most courts detest Pro-se litigates.

[Meldon]

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn�t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not. It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.
Most likely, the creation of such a large amount came in the form of fees,
penalties and interest to an otherwise sizable sum created by the court for
non-child support amounts. Many times marital debt, insurance payments,
attorneys fees and other non-C$ sums are used to create such debt for the
purpose of punishing the defendant for getting uppity with the court for
such things as.. sticking to the truth; having verifiable factual evidence;
witnesses to verify their facts; able to rebut opposing counsel; exposing
lies presented as fact to the court; etc..
Most "Family Court" judges have an agenda and often times they know the
opposing attorneys very, very well. If a plaintiff is Pro-se before the
court, such tactics are commonly used to keep the Pro-se litigate from
presenting his/her evidence and showing to the world that the court is a
sham. Most courts detest Pro-se litigates.

Abuse of the law does not mean the law is inherently unjust. It can be
just, insofar as it is presented with truth. In the eyes of the
unjust, truth is an enemy to be destroyed but this would destroy the
grail (and then the family) and then the law and then society.

I tell you now, you must trust what is sound and just and true and the
law is these things.

[Dusty]

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn�t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not. It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.
Most likely, the creation of such a large amount came in the form of fees,
penalties and interest to an otherwise sizable sum created by the court for
non-child support amounts. Many times marital debt, insurance payments,
attorneys fees and other non-C$ sums are used to create such debt for the
purpose of punishing the defendant for getting uppity with the court for
such things as.. sticking to the truth; having verifiable factual evidence;
witnesses to verify their facts; able to rebut opposing counsel; exposing
lies presented as fact to the court; etc..
Most "Family Court" judges have an agenda and often times they know the
opposing attorneys very, very well. If a plaintiff is Pro-se before the
court, such tactics are commonly used to keep the Pro-se litigate from
presenting his/her evidence and showing to the world that the court is a
sham. Most courts detest Pro-se litigates.

Abuse of the law does not mean the law is inherently unjust. It can be
just, insofar as it is presented with truth. In the eyes of the
unjust, truth is an enemy to be destroyed but this would destroy the
grail (and then the family) and then the law and then society.

I tell you now, you must trust what is sound and just and true and the
law is these things.
---------------------------
That's all well and good, but when the law is administrated by the corrupt,
then the law is corrupt as well.

[Moderator]

Post by Gloria Fong

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn’t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not.  It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.

So too then, the offense to the recipient.

[Dusty]

Post by Gloria Fong

Post by Anonymous
he is deadbeat dad who owes over $300K in child support
kids don't have food but meldon's fridge has beer

Wouldn’t a larger amount of arrears suggest a greater offence to the
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not. It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.

So too then, the offense to the recipient.
------------------
Sprechen Sie auf modernes Englisch, Sie täuschen.

[Zapp Brannigan]

Post by Moderator

[quoted text muted]
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not. It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.

So too then, the offense to the recipient.
------------------
Sprechen Sie auf modernes Englisch, Sie täuschen.

If life was all about Meldon Fens. Then I would give a shit.

Meldon is irrelevant, people who speak of Meldon Fens?

Even more irrelevant.

[Meldon]

Post by Moderator

[quoted text muted]
payor?
---------------------------
No, it would not. It just means that there is a sizable sum to pay off.

So too then, the offense to the recipient.
------------------
Sprechen Sie auf modernes Englisch, Sie täuschen.

If life was all about Meldon Fens.  Then I would give a shit.
Meldon is irrelevant, people who speak of Meldon Fens?
Even more irrelevant.

Substandard. If I were trying to say what you were, I would have
written: "Meldon is irrelevant. People who speak of Meldon Fens; even
more irrelevent." but I would not say what you are trying to say. I
would say, "Life is not about Meldon, but Meldon is about life."
Meldon serves as "everyman" because he is just and sound and seeks
truth and on uncovering it, does what is just and shares that truth.
Truth is why Meldon matters and he has many enemies indeed.

[Zapp Brannigan]

Post by Dusty
Most "Family Court" judges have an agenda and often times they know the
opposing attorneys very, very well. If a plaintiff is Pro-se before the
court, such tactics are commonly used to keep the Pro-se litigate from
presenting his/her evidence and showing to the world that the court is a
sham. Most courts detest Pro-se litigates.

Stupid people should avoid being married and perhaps be prohibited from having
kids.

"If only there was a law"